Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Character evidence

  • 9 Aug 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 呂嘉欣

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3073
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA285/2023

    On full rehearing of the evidence including CCTV and messaging records, the court found the magistrate properly evaluated witness credibility and character evidence, the appellant's account of inadvertent non‑payment was inconsistent with objective evidence and behaviour on CCTV, and the prosecution proved theft under Cap.210 s.9 beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 5 Jun 2024

    HKSAR v. HUI CHI MING

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 518
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC132/2022

    The Court held the trial judge's primary findings were open to him on the admitted video, stills, physical exhibit and admissions; the judge lawfully assessed credibility (including failure to mention the pitchfork) and properly exercised his discretion in using admitted video/stills without prior special notice; no procedural unfairness or misdirection was shown and the leave application and appeal against conviction were refused.

  • 12 Oct 2021

    HKSAR v. MORROW JR CHARLES RAYMOND

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 3047
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC292/2020

    Because the accused expressly testified to good character and denial of drug involvement, the judge exercised discretion under section 54(1)(f)(ii) to permit limited cross-examination: leave was granted to impeach credibility with the proved methamphetamine conviction (81 months) as established by available judgment material, but refused for other alleged road‑traffic and historical convictions where proof relied only on a DEA memorandum or was indeterminate (including a 1992 drugs entry) because of insufficient reliable proof and risk of unfair prejudice; the jury must be directed to use the…

  • 29 Jan 2021

    香港特別行政區 訴 盧永昌及另一人

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 245
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA304/2019

    The trial judge properly found the prosecution proved all essential elements of the s16A offences beyond reasonable doubt; s16A(2) operates to treat intent as satisfied on the accepted factual findings; the trial judge's credibility assessments and evaluation of character and other evidence were not plainly wrong; therefore the convictions are safe and must be affirmed.

  • 22 Apr 2020

    HKSAR v. MOK CHUN YIN

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 231
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC144/2018

    The September 2013 incident evidence was properly admissible and relevant to the breakdown of the relationship and the applicant's purpose in attending on the deceased; the trial judge's directions on differences between the VRI and trial evidence, and on PW9's evidence, were legally correct and in fact more favourable to the defence than required; issues of PW9's sobriety and timing were matters for jury determination. Consequently the applicant's convictions and trial were not vitiated and leave to appeal was refused.

  • 23 Jan 2020

    HKSAR v. WONG YI CHING

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 93
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC374/2018

    Given the defence allegations of police misconduct (tearing cellophane, coaching and physical contact) the trial judge properly found an imputation on the character/credibility of prosecution witnesses under s54(1)(f)(ii), exercised her discretion on admissibility in a principled and restricted manner (permitting evidence only of convictions and detention, not nature of offences), and any omission to direct the jury about prior guilty pleas would not have affected the outcome; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.

  • 11 Jan 2019

    香港特別行政區 訴 洪岩松

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 32
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC366/2017

    The Court held the complained aspects of the summing-up did not mislead the jury or usurp their function; the trial judge properly treated WhatsApp material as important contextual evidence while warning the jury about context and caution; the defence’s allegation impugning the complainant’s character justified disclosure of prior convictions under s54(1)(f)(ii) and the trial judge properly exercised discretion with adequate directions; the conviction was therefore safe and the application for leave to appeal refused.

  • 30 Mar 2017

    HKSAR v. SRM

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SRM
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC111/2016

    Leave to appeal was granted on grounds 1, 3 and 4 because the applicant raised reasonably arguable criticisms of the trial judge's evaluation of the complainant's and applicant's evidence, notably that the judge may have reached findings unsupported by the complainant's testimony and may have been improperly influenced by comments about the applicant's sexual orientation; grounds 2 and 5 were refused as standalone but may be argued as part of other grounds.

  • 11 Apr 2013

    HKSAR v. TSANG WING YAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TSANG WING YAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA117/2013

    The appeal court allowed the appeal and concluded that, while the offence was serious and comparable to pickpocketing, the appellant's clear record, positive background and the opportunistic, alcohol‑related nature of the offence justified suspending the 4‑month sentence for two years rather than immediate imprisonment.

  • 8 Jan 2013

    HKSAR v. KWOK PING KAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. KWOK PING KAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC119/2011

    Although the prosecution's questions suggesting prior arrests were improper and ought not to have been asked, the trial judge's decision to address the matter in his summing-up with strong, specific directions to the jury effectively cured any prejudice in the context of this case; accordingly leave to appeal was granted but the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.