Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility of child witness

Legal area

Court

19 May 2022

香港特別行政區訴吳森雄

Citation

[2022] HKCA 727
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC43/2021

The Court dismissed the leave application because the trial judge's comprehensive, reasoned assessment of all evidence — including the child's account and the credibility of witnesses — was within her discretion and not vitiated by legal error; the proposed fresh evidence was unreliable, tainted by improper recording and not sufficiently credible to undermine the verdict, so no real prospect of successful appeal existed.
7 May 2020

香港特別行政區訴李健聰

Citation

[2020] HKCA 282
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC212/2018

The trial judge did not err: he legitimately exercised fact‑finding discretion, observed the complainant and found her overall demeanour and evidence credible, medical findings were consistent with the complainant's account, the defence account was implausible and the applicant's police admissions undermined his case; therefore there was no arguable ground for a conviction appeal and leave is refused.
2 Aug 2019

香港特別行政區訴鍾嘉庭

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1857
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA143/2019

The trial judge properly evaluated the child complainant's evidence as consistent on the crucial points, justifiably rejected the appellant's implausible explanation, and was entitled to manage and intervene in questioning of a vulnerable witness; the inconsistencies alleged were minor and did not render the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
12 Jun 2019

香港特別行政區訴高詠恩

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1381
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA605/2018

Appeal allowed because, on the evidence before the court (notably the description of the bed and the absence of a clear mechanism showing a deliberate act likely to cause unnecessary harm), there was a reasonable doubt whether the appellant committed an intentional assault in a manner likely to cause unnecessary harm; the conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed.
17 Aug 2018

HKSAR v. WONG SHING YAM

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 38
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC57/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a real danger of substantial and grave injustice; the Magistrate and Deputy Judge reasonably and properly accepted the child witness as honest and reliable and there was no sufficient basis to conclude the conviction was unsafe given the evidence.
30 Dec 2016

香港特別行政區訴張嘉豪

Citation

香港特別行政區訴張嘉豪
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA109/2016

The Court allowed the appeal against convictions for counts 1–3 because the appellate court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the touching while bathing could not reasonably be explained as non‑sexual caregiving and the judge's inference of indecent intent was not the only reasonable inference; the Court dismissed the appeal against conviction for count 4 because the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, reasonably found that handcuffing and pointing a gun‑like object deliberately caused the child to fear violence and established hostile intent beyond reasonable doubt.
1 Dec 2014

香港特別行政區訴黃裕益

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃裕益
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA329/2014

The Court upheld the trial judge's assessment that the complainant's testimony was credible and consistent in its essential particulars; minor inconsistencies between child witnesses and the mother's imprecise statements did not demonstrate coaching or undermine the recent complaint; the photographic discrepancy about a triangular sign was peripheral and immaterial. Therefore the convictions were not unsafe and the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
31 Oct 2013

香港特別行政區訴黃煥均

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃煥均
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA539/2013

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge permissibly accepted the child witness's evidence after addressing inconsistencies; there is no demonstrable error in fact-finding or law that would render the conviction unsafe.
7 Jul 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN CHING HO OWEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHING HO OWEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC549/1999

The appeals were dismissed because the trial judge had thoroughly examined the evidence charge by charge, was entitled to accept the child’s account despite potential contamination after warning herself of the dangers, properly considered defence evidence including expert testimony (which supported the prosecution case in context), and the aggregate five-year sentence was justified by separate distinct offences, breach of trust, repetition and lack of mitigation; therefore convictions and sentences stand.
17 Apr 1998

HKSAR v. LAU KIT YU

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU KIT YU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1176/1997

The learned magistrate properly considered credibility, warnings, and discrepancies; the inconsistencies were not vital and did not render the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal against conviction is dismissed.