Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Good character evidence

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. POON KWAN NOK PAM

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 159
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA348/2017

The Court found no legal error or palpable misapprehension in the magistrate's findings; the magistrate properly assessed credibility, accepted and accounted for character evidence, and rationally concluded multiple repeated contacts with sensitive parts were not accidental. The magistrate's findings were not plainly wrong and the convictions were neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
14 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. MAK CHAI KWONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MAK CHAI KWONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC309/2013

Although the trial judge made erroneous findings about who provided the purchase monies, the appellate court held that the judge’s independent and untainted findings that the applicants entered a prior composite scheme of cross‑holding and bogus cross‑leasing established beneficial (financial) interests and dishonest intent to mislead the Government when claiming PTA; those findings rendered the convictions safe and the appeals were dismissed.
30 Oct 2013

HKSAR v. LIANG YAOQIANG

Citation

HKSAR v. LIANG YAOQIANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC393/2010

The conviction was unsafe because counsel had agreed to admit pervasive hearsay evidence that was plainly adduced for its truth and which materially undermined the provocation defence; repeated judicial directions that the hearsay was not evidence of truth could not remove the confusion or prejudice; accordingly the murder conviction was quashed and a retrial on a fresh indictment ordered.
3 Mar 2006

HKSAR v. GULAPA, LAMBERTO R

Citation

HKSAR v. GULAPA, LAMBERTO R
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1039/2005

The magistrate accepted the prosecution's account and rejected the appellant's denial after observing witnesses; absent any misdirection or compelling reason to overturn those credibility findings, the appellate court must defer and dismiss the appeal.
14 Nov 2003

HKSAR v. KHAN MUMTAZ

Citation

HKSAR v. KHAN MUMTAZ
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA879/2003

The magistrate failed to satisfactorily resolve material discrepancies in the sole complainant's account—particularly the alleged 45‑minute detention with no injury and unexplained omissions—leaving a lurking doubt as to the safety of the conviction; therefore the conviction was unsafe and quashed.
25 Apr 2002

HKSAR v. HO SUI HOI AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HO SUI HOI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC169/2001

The applicants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that continuation of the High Court trial would make a fair trial impossible or constitute an abuse of process; separation of charges was justifiable on the facts and for case management; the conceded good character does not remove the risk of prejudice but does not warrant a stay; editing of interview records is permissible after admissibility rulings with identified passages to be excised unless defence requires them, and accordingly the applications for a permanent stay were refused.
29 Jan 2002

HKSAR v. CHANG KIN MAN IVAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHANG KIN MAN IVAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC74/2001

Although the judge erred in her handling and weighting of Mr Chang's inconsistent evidence and trial counsel failed to put the applicant's good character, the totality of cogent evidence (bookkeeper's evidence, indistinguishable company goods on no-prefix memos, joint account payments to applicant) made the convictions safe; accordingly the Court applied the proviso in section 83 Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap.221) and dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions.
21 Sept 2001

NICHOLAS F.F. PIRIE v. THE BAR COUNCIL

Citation

NICHOLAS F.F. PIRIE v. THE BAR COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV744/2000

By a majority the Court held the Tribunal's undefined reservation to apply criminal rules 'with flexibility' created unfair uncertainty and the Tribunal breached natural justice by rejecting unchallenged written evidence of Mr Nunns without affording testing; the Tribunal also misdirected itself on the evidential effect of good character. The Tribunal's verdict was therefore set aside and a full rehearing ordered before a differently constituted tribunal; costs ordered nisi for the appellant.
7 Oct 1999

HKSAR v. FONG CHONG PUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. FONG CHONG PUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC528/1998

The Court held the convictions were safe because the cumulative circumstantial and forensic evidence (keys/pager, unique parcel markings on tickets, cloth samples physically matched and bearing D3's thumbprint, fibres linking D3's jacket to the lorry, identifications and other links) justified inferences of control/possession and of knowledge or belief the goods were stolen; D2's counsel's failure to adduce good character did not produce a miscarriage of justice given the strength of the case; sentencing was not manifestly excessive and the trial judge properly applied the totality principle…
21 Jun 1999

HKSAR v. WONG TSIU KEN

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG TSIU KEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA736/1998

The magistrate correctly evaluated the evidence, properly used the mother's testimony only for consistency, did not impose any burden of proof on the appellant, was entitled to prefer the child's uncorroborated testimony after observing demeanour, and the six month immediate custodial sentence was within discretion and not manifestly excessive; therefore the convictions and sentence stand.