Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fresh evidence admissibility

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

GALLOLU KANKANAMALAGE NIMAL PERERA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 904
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV224/2025

The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or other basis to disturb the Judge's refusal to grant leave; the matters advanced were factual issues for the Board, new assertions should have been presented to the Board and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
5 Sept 2025

BEGUM FIRDOUS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3961
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL790/2020

There were no reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review; the TCAB's findings on risk and availability of state/NGO protection were within its evaluative province and not vitiated by legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the medical records and post-hearing death certificate were inadmissible or irrelevant and would not probably have affected the outcome, therefore leave is refused.
13 Aug 2025

香港特別行政區訴蘇健誠

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA460/2024

The appellate court, after re‑hearing and reviewing the record and videos, found the magistrate's credibility findings and factual conclusions reasonable and supported by the video and photos; the application to admit fresh evidence failed Rahman criteria; the appellant was not denied a fair trial; the prosecution proved careless driving beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction and HK$2,000 fine are affirmed.
15 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. TSANG CHEUNG YAN (曾祥欣)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 42
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC31/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show it was reasonably arguable that the murder verdict was inconsistent with co-accused manslaughter verdicts; the evidence demonstrated materially different intentions and roles justifying the respective verdicts, and the fresh evidence would not have changed the outcome and lacked adequate explanation for its late adducing.
17 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴鍾世豪

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA348/2020

The appeal is dismissed because the dashcam footage and PW1's evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant failed to keep a safe distance and drove without due care; the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; the application to admit fresh evidence was refused as irrelevant and not material to the contested issues.
22 Nov 2021

RE MUHAMMAD ARFAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1730
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP136/2021

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was significantly out of time, provided no cogent explanation for the delay, and failed to identify any particularised, reasonably arguable grounds demonstrating errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave; absent a real prospect of success it would be futile to extend time and the CA Summons is therefore dismissed.
22 Nov 2021

RE SHAN MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1727
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP89/2021

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay of more than two years was substantial and unexplained, the intended appeal had no real or reasonable prospect of success given the Deputy Judge's correct conclusions that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and adverse credibility findings were justified, so it would be futile to extend time.
30 Apr 2021

RE OZOEMENAM DESMOND

Citation

[2021] HKCA 572
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV204/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was correctly refused because the Board and Director adequately considered COI, credibility and internal relocation and no arguable public law error was shown; new internet material filed on appeal was inadmissible without leave and could not support leave.
18 Mar 2021

RE KOLAMBAGE PRATHBHATH PURNAKA

Citation

[2021] HKCA 311
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV206/2020

The application for leave to appeal to the CFA is refused because the Pakistan/Sri Lanka reference was a clerical error capable of corrigendum, the newly tendered documents constitute fresh evidence improperly raised for the first time at the leave stage without explanation or demonstrated relevance to previously advanced grounds, and no question of great general or public importance was shown under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
17 Aug 2020

RE KHAN MD AL AMIN

Citation

[2020] HKCA 692
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV18/2020

The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's adverse credibility findings (which are within the Board's fact‑finding province), failed to particularise new cogent evidence or satisfy the tests for fresh evidence, and thus had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.