Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inherent probabilities

Legal area

Court

29 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴鄧軍淦

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1430
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA415/2022

Appeal allowed because, on re‑examination of the evidence, the trial magistrate erred in procedure and evaluation: he assessed the defence before the prosecution without adequate reason, failed to address important inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities (including timing of the Zung form amendment and plausibility of unreported sexual touching in a hospital setting), and did not properly explain reliance on demeanour or inherent probabilities. Those errors rendered the conviction unsafe and must be quashed on rehearing under the standard set out in HKSAR v Hui Lai Ki.
28 Sept 2020

香港特別行政區訴唐婉衡

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA106/2019

The trial judge rightly rejected the defence expert's diagnosis as lacking sufficient foundation and relying on inadmissible hearsay and untested statements; the police evidence and CCTV were credible and established dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt; alternative explanations did not meet the required inherent probability standard; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal fails.
24 Feb 2012

HKSAR v. "Z"

Citation

HKSAR v. "Z"
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC68/2011

Leave to appeal refused because the magistrate lawfully resolved the sole credibility issue on the evidence as a whole; there was no breach of Browne v Dunn or natural justice; the Judge's comments about inherent probabilities and male impulses were inappropriate but did not demonstrate error warranting leave; the complaint to the sister was admissible as part of surrounding circumstances not as hearsay, so no point of law arose.
6 Oct 2011

HKSAR v. WONG WING CHEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG WING CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA491/2011

The conviction was quashed because the Magistrate's reliance on absence of fabrication and treatment of inherent probabilities effectively excluded the possibility of honest mistake and thus rendered the conviction unsafe under the proper criminal standard of proof.
30 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. VAN HUIJSTEE, ANTONIUS MARIUS JACOBUS

Citation

HKSAR v. VAN HUIJSTEE, ANTONIUS MARIUS JACOBUS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA459/2010

The magistrate's credibility and fact‑finding were within proper evaluative judgment and were not shown to be irrelevant, lacking, careless or flawed; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
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.
20 Apr 2007

HKSAR v. LAW WAI MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAW WAI MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA583/2006

The Magistrate conducted a proper evaluation of the evidence, addressed discrepancies as lapses or honest mistakes, relied on recent complaint, demeanour and inherent probabilities, and there was no misapprehension of evidence warranting appellate interference; accordingly the convictions were upheld.
29 Apr 2005

HKSAR v. YUNG LUNG BIU ALBERT

Citation

HKSAR v. YUNG LUNG BIU ALBERT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1267/2004

The appeal was dismissed because the alleged discrepancies in the transcript did not create a reasonable or lurking doubt; the magistrate was entitled to accept PW5's evidence based on demeanour and inherent probabilities, and therefore the convictions under s73 Crimes Ordinance were safe and upheld.
18 Oct 2004

LAU CHI WAI v. HKSAR

Citation

LAU CHI WAI v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2004

The conviction was unsafe and perverse because the prosecution's key witness retracted material allegations, other evidence (including contemporaneous procedure, radio transcript of seeking breathalyser assistance, and corroborating police testimony) supported the appellant's account, and the overall inherent probabilities favoured innocence; therefore the Court must intervene under the substantial and grave injustice ground and quash the conviction.
28 Nov 2002

HKSAR v. BUT KAM HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. BUT KAM HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA314/2002

The magistrate erred by failing to properly weigh the inherent probabilities of the competing versions and by relying too heavily on the improbability of a conspiracy and on demeanour; this created a lurking doubt as to the safety of the conviction, entitling the court to quash the conviction and set aside the magistrate's orders.