Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corroboration

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2025

EBAGUA DESTINY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL160/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors; the Board applied the correct legal tests, observed a high standard of fairness, and made fact-based findings (not susceptible to judicial review absent public law error), so the challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
27 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴陳芳

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA237/2023

On rehearing the court found the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and credibility: the CCTV footage, although not showing the precise assault moment, materially accorded with the complainant's account; the trial judge reasonably rejected the appellant's account as inconsistent with the footage and circumstances; there was no credible evidence of fabrication; the prosecution proved common assault beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed.
20 May 2022

香港特別行政區訴馮奕鈞

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA38/2022

The trial judge's credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence; the appellant's explanations were internally inconsistent and inherently implausible, his lies were indicative of concealment, and his act of hiding the wallet demonstrated the intention to appropriate such that, on the whole of the evidence, guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
31 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD FAKHRUL ALFAQIH BIN SAADON

Citation

[2021] HKCA 2023
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/2020

Leave to appeal against conviction was refused because the challenged directions (on lies, suitcase weight and WhatsApp messages) were adequate and any inferences were properly left to the jury; leave to appeal against sentence was granted only on the limited basis that the applicant's NPS contained corroborative information of potential practical use and the Yeung Hoi Ting procedure had not been strictly followed, warranting appellate consideration of sentence credit.
28 Oct 2021

ZULFIQAR ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL786/2019

No arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was identified in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse factual findings were supported by the evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable; state protection and internal relocation were available; the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
29 Nov 2019

香港特別行政區訴黃國建

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1349
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC310/2018

Permission to appeal against conviction was refused because the applicant's grounds lacked any arguable basis; the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence which was supported by a prompt complaint and CCTV; the alleged timing discrepancies were not credible; and the trial judge's directions were comprehensive, correct and fair.
26 Jan 2018

HKSAR v. BADJIE MALICK

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 145
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA143/2017

The magistrate’s acceptance of the undercover constable PW3’s identification was properly reasoned, supported by multiple recognitions under good lighting and proximity, the short delay and lack of corroborative material did not render the conviction unsafe, and there was no miscarriage of justice in the manner the magistrate considered credibility; appeal dismissed.
23 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. LAM MEI LING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM MEI LING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC125/2016

The court refused leave to appeal because the conviction on Count 2 was properly supported by independent and cogent evidence (contemporaneous SMS from the applicant, police evidence that the applicant pointed to the ground, and bank transaction evidence) such that the jury could rationally convict on Count 2 while acquitting on Count 1; the trial judge correctly and adequately directed the jury to treat the key witness's evidence with caution, and there was no lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction.
14 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC74/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's findings that the statement was material, that the prosecution witnesses collectively provided cogent corroboration and that the applicant's evidence was false were reasonable and open on the evidence; further, the 15‑month custodial sentence (after a 6‑month mitigation discount) was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
22 Dec 2014

香港特別行政區訴吳少峰

Citation

香港特別行政區訴吳少峰
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA427/2014

The appellate court upheld the conviction because the trial judge conducted a proper analysis of the sole prosecution witness's credibility, considered the lack of corroboration and other relevant factors, and lawfully concluded the witness's evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.