HKSAR v. KAN WAI HO

HKSAR v. KAN WAI HO

The magistrate's acceptance of the victim's evidence was entitled to deference because the inconsistencies with PW2 and PW3 were not material, the magistrate rejected the appellant's account as not credible, and the touching in the second incident (crown of head down to waist including contact with brassiere strap over clothing) would be regarded by right‑minded people as indecent and was intended by the appellant; accordingly the convictions were upheld.

Citation
HKSAR v. KAN WAI HO
Parties
Appellant/accused: KAN WAI HO; Respondent: HKSAR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2007
Case Number
HCMA134/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentence in High Court (court of First Instance) on Appeal From Tsuen Wan Magistrates Court (twcc 39 of 2007)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Common Assault, Credibility of Witnesses, Delay in Reporting, Assessment of Accidental Contact, Standards of Appellate Review
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Appeals Indecent Assault Common Assault Credibility of Witnesses Delay in Reporting +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAN WAI HO

Appellant/accused

HKSAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentence in High Court (court of First Instance) on Appeal From Tsuen Wan Magistrates Court (twcc 39 of 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in accepting the victim's evidence despite discrepancies with PW2 and PW3
  2. 2 Whether the contact in Charge 1 could have been accidental
  3. 3 Whether the touching in Charge 2 amounted to an indecent assault and whether the appellant intended indecency

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's acceptance of the victim's evidence was entitled to deference because the inconsistencies with PW2 and PW3 were not material, the magistrate rejected the appellant's account as not credible, and the touching in the second incident (crown of head down to waist including contact with brassiere strap over clothing) would be regarded by right‑minded people as indecent and was intended by the appellant; accordingly the convictions were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions for common assault and indecent assault upheld