6 Jun 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably and carefully assessed the complainant's credibility and resolved inconsistencies; he applied appropriate caution in relation to uncorroborated complaint evidence notwithstanding the absence of formulaic wording; the conviction under Crimes Ordinance (Cap.200) s122(1) is safe and should be upheld.
6 Mar 2009
The magistrate's credibility assessment was reasonable: the discrepancies were minor or explicable, the alleged physical actions were possible in the seating configuration, no adverse inference direction was necessary, and there was no need for a special corroboration warning; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
12 Aug 2004
Although the magistrate applied appropriate caution and was entitled to assess demeanour and demonstrations, substantial concerns about discrepancies in PW1's account—notably the late assertion about touching the bra and ambiguous content of the recent complaint—left a lurking doubt about the occurrence of the charged (third) stage; that reasonable doubt rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing by the appellate court.
19 Aug 2003
The trial judge did not err in law or in the exercise of his discretion: there was no evidential basis requiring a special corroboration warning; the summing up fairly and thoroughly addressed inconsistencies, medical evidence and other points relied on by the defence; the alleged discrepancies were trivial or fully explored at trial; fresh evidence was not necessary or expedient; accordingly the convictions were safe and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Nov 2002
The magistrate properly assessed the credibility of the sole complainant, rejected the appellant's account as illogical, lawfully disregarded the friend's recital evidence, and the appellate court will not overturn credibility-based findings of fact absent exceptional circumstances; therefore the conviction is upheld.
6 Dec 2001
The magistrate carefully assessed credibility, correctly applied the law that corroboration warnings are not automatically required in sexual cases, properly treated medical evidence as supportive but not independently corroborative, and reasonably concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offences; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
7 Mar 2001
The magistrate properly assessed the evidence, demeanour and relationship between parties, gave a corroboration warning, accepted the complainant's credible explanation for omission about a subsequent incident, and there was no misdirection or failure to consider material matters; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
5 Jun 1998
Appeal allowed because the Magistrate failed to make clear he had the risk of convicting on uncorroborated evidence in mind and did not give the required corroboration warning in a sexual offence case, rendering the conviction unsafe; additional evidential doubts reinforced that conclusion.
4 Mar 1997
The conviction on charge 2 was upheld because unchallenged evidence that the applicant was staff at the villa, possessed the key and was present at the relevant times permitted an irresistible inference that he was party to detaining the victim with the intention she should commit unlawful sexual acts; however, there was insufficient evidence that the villa was used wholly or mainly for prostitution so the conviction for assisting in the management of a vice establishment (charge 5) was quashed.
23 Jun 1992
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's reasons were sufficient to show awareness of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated testimony and he was properly satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the complainant's credibility; the additional points raised by the appellant did not render the conviction unsafe.