Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination limits

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. KO WAI LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. KO WAI LUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC131/2016

Cross-examination that invited adverse inferences from the applicant's failure to disclose information to the police or to contact the accomplice or his family was impermissible and constituted a material breach of the right of silence; the trial judge compounded the breach by recounting impugned cross-examination in the summing up without directing the jury to ignore it or giving the standard right to silence direction; the error was not cured and required quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.
20 Mar 2008

HKSAR v. WONG KWOK WANG, WARREN

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KWOK WANG, WARREN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC461/2006

Cross-examination asking an accused whether he knows a reason why a witness would lie is permissible where relevant, provided the judge’s directions make clear the prosecution retains the burden of proof; in this case the judge's directions and the substantial documentary and financial corroboration of Chan meant the convictions were safe. The District Court judge did not err in refusing a stay for non-joinder or delay where investigations were ongoing and no prejudice was shown. The sentences imposed were within proper limits and not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal was dismissed.
15 Aug 2006

HKSAR v TSE HOI-PAN, DOMINIC

Citation

HKSAR v TSE HOI-PAN, DOMINIC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC18/2006

The judge held that broad inquiry into complainant's prior sexual history was excluded by s.154 and its protective purpose, but limited cross-examination was permitted because the accused's defence directly contested penetration; questions confined to whether the complainant had ever had sexual intercourse before the alleged event, when she last had intercourse if relevant, and why she believed the accused penetrated and ejaculated, were sufficiently relevant that excluding them would be unfair to the accused.
17 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. LAM KIT LIN, KATHLEEN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM KIT LIN, KATHLEEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA651/1999

The appeal is dismissed because there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and the Magistrate did not err in curtailing cross-examination on the cost of repairs as that matter was irrelevant to the driving offence and not a material irregularity.
19 Sept 1989

THE QUEEN v. LAU YUK YING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU YUK YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA663/1989

The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's finding that the presumption of trafficking had not been rebutted was influenced by cross-examination that infringed Section 54(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance; accordingly the conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking was unsafe and was quashed and substituted with a conviction for simple possession, and the sentence was reduced proportionately.
10 Apr 1984

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YAM-SHING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YAM-SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1479/1983

Although the prosecutor's specific question suggesting the appellant was an office-bearer of the Sun Yee On exceeded proper bounds, the error was isolated, received a negative answer, the jury were directed that such suggestions were not evidence and to judge facts from evidence, the broader triad-related evidence supported the Crown case, and no miscarriage of justice occurred; therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal was dismissed under the proviso.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. KO WAI LUN

HKSAR v. WONG KWOK WANG, WARREN

HKSAR v TSE HOI-PAN, DOMINIC

HKSAR v. LAM KIT LIN, KATHLEEN

THE QUEEN v. LAU YUK YING

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YAM-SHING