Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and reliability of witnesses

Legal area

Court

18 Apr 2024

香港特別行政區訴冉啟梅

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA255/2023

On re-hearing the court accepted the magistrate's finding that the complainant's evidence was credible and consistent with medical evidence, held the appellant's proposed additional material did not meet the criteria for admission and would not have altered the verdict, and concluded the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence was within proper discretion and not manifestly excessive, therefore conviction and sentence were upheld.
28 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. ZAIB, PHOOL

Citation

HKSAR v. ZAIB, PHOOL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA2/2017

The magistrate's careful assessment that PW1 was a credible and reliable witness and that the prosecution proved the appellant was hawking and sold a bag was not plainly wrong; therefore the conviction under ss 38AA(1)(b) and 38AA(2) of the Immigration Ordinance is upheld.
25 Jun 2012

香港特別行政區訴趙强

Citation

香港特別行政區訴趙强
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA793/2011

The magistrate materially erred by mischaracterising key evidence (finding a 'good' relationship without supporting testimony) and by failing to give appropriate weight to the defence witness's evidence about disputes and possible motive to fabricate; those errors rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing.
24 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. YIP CHI YUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP CHI YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA212/2006

The magistrate's careful credibility findings were reasonable and within his advantage as the trier of fact; the identified discrepancies did not undermine PW1 and PW2 to the extent of creating reasonable doubt; there was no improper use of the appellant's silence under caution and no substantive mental‑state defence established; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
24 May 2001

HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1330/2000

Conviction quashed because the magistrate's Statement of Findings failed to set out salient facts necessary to establish the offence of offering for sale (no clear findings on display, provenance or proportion of infringing discs, and unresolved inconsistency about touting undermining reliability of prosecution evidence); given these deficiencies and uncertainties the court would not substitute the offence of exposing for sale; conviction unsafe and sentence set aside.
14 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. LEE HA YU

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE HA YU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA582/1999

Considering the evidence as a whole — the inconclusive prosecution handwriting evidence, the defence expert's exclusion of the appellant, the muddled and partially favourable evidence of the complainant, and the centrality of PW3's account — there was a lurking doubt about PW3's veracity; because the conviction was founded solely on his evidence it was unsafe and had to be quashed.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 冉啟梅

HKSAR v. ZAIB, PHOOL

香港特別行政區 訴 趙强

HKSAR v. YIP CHI YUNG

HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIT

HKSAR v. LEE HA YU

香港特別行政區訴冉啟梅

香港特別行政區訴趙强