Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Demeanour

  • 17 Nov 2009

    HKSAR v. MOK YUEN CHUEN, PHOEBE

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MOK YUEN CHUEN, PHOEBE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA467/2009

    The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate provided adequate reasons overall, properly considered the Appellant's good character, did not place undue weight on demeanour, and the later, more detailed Statement of Findings only elaborated the original oral reasons without introducing inconsistency or unfairness; therefore the conviction for theft was safe and must be upheld.

  • 21 Nov 2008

    HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIN WILLIAM

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIN WILLIAM
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC388/2007

    The Full Court dismissed the application because the trial judge gave comprehensive, orthodox directions on burden and standard of proof, the weight to be attached to the defendant's cautioned interview, the use and relevance of prior incidents as contextual evidence for credibility (not propensity), the admissibility/use of an early contemporaneous statement to rebut an attack of recent invention, and on distress and demeanour; there was no material misdirection and the conviction was safe.

  • 20 Dec 2002

    HKSAR v. SO YUK SING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SO YUK SING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1002/2002

    The magistrate lawfully and reasonably accepted the prosecution witnesses' evidence, made no error of law or misapprehension of the evidence, and the appellate court, having reviewed the transcript and law (including s.119(1) powers), found no basis to overturn those credibility findings; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the conviction is confirmed.

  • 30 May 1995

    R. v. SINGH DHALINER and Others

    Citation
    R. v. SINGH DHALINER and Others
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC15/1995

    The convictions of the 5th and 6th accused were quashed because the trial judge fundamentally erred by not giving them the full benefit of their clear good character, rendering their convictions unsafe; additionally the 5th's alibi was improperly rejected on timing/distance findings and the 6th's conviction rested on weak identification (no parade, acceptance by demeanour alone), whereas the leave applications of the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused lacked sufficient merit and were refused.

  • 13 Oct 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG SIU-WOON

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG SIU-WOON
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1022/1989

    The magistrate erred by effectively accepting the prosecution case solely because he rejected the defence without independently ensuring the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the available evidence (name cards, torn shirt parts) did not sufficiently corroborate the prosecution to cure that error, therefore conviction could not stand and was quashed.