Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Opinion evidence

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. McCALL HOWARD KENNETH AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. McCALL HOWARD KENNETH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC446/2016

Dr Mak's report and proposed testimony concerning average daily consumption rates were inadmissible because the prosecution failed to prove he was qualified to evaluate and apply the statistical studies he relied on, the report lacked necessary methodological and statistical foundations and failed to demonstrate relevance and applicability to Hong Kong and to non-Chinese defendants, so the risks of admitting the evidence outweighed any probative value under the court's gatekeeping role.
26 Jan 2015

LEUNG PIK WA v. POH PO LIAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG PIK WA v. POH PO LIAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA681/2011

The court held that the contested portions of the witness statement were primarily inadmissible opinion evidence because they constituted a forensic accounting analysis beyond the lay witness's expertise and were not the kind of opinion permitted by s58(2) Evidence Ordinance; only those passages that were factual and within the witness's personal knowledge as identified in the Scott Schedule were admitted, and passages that were repetitive or intertwined with impermissible opinion were excluded.
25 Mar 2014

HKSAR v. TAI HIN WING

Citation

HKSAR v. TAI HIN WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA108/2013

The polling officers gave admissible lay evidence about checking ID numbers and faces and did not give inadmissible expert or identification evidence; the magistrate was entitled to infer from the near identical registration forms and the officers' unchallenged checking that the Appellant submitted the 2nd Form and attended the polling station; the conviction was safe and the immediate custodial sentence of 3 months was appropriate and not excessive given precedent on vote planting.
3 Sept 2013

HO SUK MAN v. SIT TIM MAU

Citation

HO SUK MAN v. SIT TIM MAU<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI122/2011

Retrospective leave to serve the late Yuen witness statement is granted in part: factual material about auditing work within Mr Yuen's personal knowledge is admissible, but assertions lacking source, opinion on hypothetical employment, and internet annexures are inadmissible; lateness was not justified but prejudice to defendant is manageable by redaction, costs and permitting responsive pleadings and evidence.
26 May 2011

CHUI PUI KUN v. CHUI WAI KWAN

Citation

CHUI PUI KUN v. CHUI WAI KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2339/2009

The further witness statements are admissible because they are short, relevant and likely to be challenged as hearsay if not given by the witnesses themselves, but sentences expressing witnesses' opinions that the letters are not defamatory must be deleted because whether words are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning is a matter for the jury; costs awarded to defendant as successful party on application.
10 Dec 2008

GEORGE CROFTS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GEORGE CROFTS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA807/2007

The court struck out the impugned paragraphs because they were irrelevant to the pleaded issues, constituted opinion or expert evidence improperly advanced by a lay witness, or were hearsay/double hearsay or legal conclusions; the trial must be confined to pleaded issues and not become a forum to relitigate historical union-management disputes.
25 Jan 2007

KRALIK JAMES CHRISTOPHER v. VTECH HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

KRALIK JAMES CHRISTOPHER v. VTECH HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2894/2004

The application was allowed because the contested matters had been raised previously in witness statements, opinion material is admissible under section 58(2) of the Evidence Ordinance, paragraph 34 of the amended defence and counterclaim provides sufficient particulars of loss and damage on one view of the pleadings, and any remaining deficiencies can be remedied by the defendant serving voluntary particulars without disrupting the trial.
3 Sept 1996

THE QUEEN v. LAU WAI MING (D1)

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU WAI MING (D1)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA503/1996

The conviction was upheld because the magistrate properly identified the appellant and lawfully distinguished and excluded inadmissible hearsay while admitting contextual opinion evidence from an undercover participant; the admitted evidence sufficed to establish that the appellant acted as a member/organiser of a triad society and the appeal therefore failed.
19 Aug 1994

TANGKAO SAE TANG v. R.

Citation

TANGKAO SAE TANG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/1994

The judge's summing-up improperly amplified the forensic pathologist's opinion, suggesting it corroborated the complainant and diminished the appellant's account that he had been punched by police; that misdirection was material to the core issue of consent and rendered the conviction unsafe, requiring it to be set aside. The omission to link good character expressly to credibility did not, on the facts, cause prejudice.
26 Mar 1986

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG YU LING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG YU LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1004/1985

Because the magistrates' record was ambiguous, contained admitted hearsay and opinion evidence and failed to show the basis of exhibits and admissions, the conviction was unsafe; the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside and a fresh trial ordered.