Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Previous inconsistent statements

Legal area

Court

17 Jan 2023

HKSAR v. CHAN HO-KWAI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 95
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC210/2021

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the asserted errors were either unfounded or not reasonably arguable: the judge gave adequate directions focusing on knowledge not suspicion, a lies direction was unnecessary, inconsistencies were properly dealt with and were matters for assessment by the jury, the contested evidential and procedural matters lacked substance, and no material irregularity or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.
29 Nov 1989

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PIK-YEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PIK-YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA632/1989

The magistrate permissibly assessed inconsistencies as explicable by lapse of memory and differing perspectives, accepted sufficient corroborative evidence that two parking rates existed and that payments were collected through security guards, found no basis to treat PW7 as an accomplice, and therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal was dismissed.
19 Jan 1988

THE QUEEN v. LAM CHI SUM

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM CHI SUM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC503/1987

The Court upheld the conviction: the trial judge was entitled to accept the in‑court identification evidence of PW1 and PW3 despite discrepancies and prior inconsistent statements; although it was regrettable the trial judge did not invoke the proviso to section 14 to inspect prior statements, that omission did not render the conviction unsafe in the circumstances.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHAN HO-KWAI

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PIK-YEE

THE QUEEN v. LAM CHI SUM