Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Propensity evidence

  • 25 Jul 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 胡愛民

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2605
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA260/2023

    The court concluded that the cumulative weight of surveillance footage identifying the appellant at both crime scenes, phone records linking him to a co-defendant, a contemporaneous WeChat message indicating planned action, and close post-offence interaction with the perpetrators made the only rational inference that the appellant shared the common intent and participated in the joint enterprise to commit criminal damage; therefore conviction and sentence were safe and upheld.

  • 15 Apr 2016

    HKSAR v. NG CHUN TO RAYMOND

    Citation
    HKSAR v. NG CHUN TO RAYMOND
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC65/2015

    Leave to appeal against conviction refused because any arguable error in admitting evidence of earlier HK events was neutralised by the judge's clear limiting direction and there was ample independent circumstantial and direct evidence linking the applicant to the conspiracies such that the co-conspirator rule and admitted hearsay did not render the convictions unsafe; leave to appeal against sentence granted because the retrial sentencing increase raised a reasonably arguable issue under the principle that a sentence after retrial should not ordinarily exceed the original sentence without cl…

  • 13 Mar 2015

    HKSAR v. SINGH BALWINDER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SINGH BALWINDER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC166/2014

    The Court held the trial judge acted within her discretion in admitting the applicant's prior convictions because the defence had imputed matters to the prosecution witness; the convictions were relevant to credibility only, the judge gave appropriate directions limiting their use and the cross-examination of the accused about knowledge of a witness's motive to lie was permissible; accordingly the conviction and sentences were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

  • 12 Sept 2014

    TAN KAH ENG v. TAN SECK YEOW AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TAN KAH ENG v. TAN SECK YEOW AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV109/2012

    On the totality of the evidence the Court accepted the Recorder's factual findings that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged loans and that the three key letters were more likely than not to be forged; handwriting expert opinion was inconclusive but, taken with signature placement/quality, inherent improbabilities, inconsistencies in the plaintiff's account, lack of contemporaneous records and the plaintiff's prior convictions, the necessary balance of probabilities was not met; appeal dismissed and costs ordered to the defendant on an indemnity basis.

  • 6 May 2013

    HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC182/2012

    Defendant's prior sworn statements and evidence in the probate proceedings are admissible because they are 'mixed'—containing admissions of factual matters (possession, use, dates) and background circumstances relevant to the circumstantial criminal case—and are therefore not inadmissible hearsay; the probative value of that evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect and the prosecution may adduce it to challenge the defendant's account without it amounting to impermissible propensity evidence.

  • 3 May 2013

    HKSAR v. C (A Minor)

    Citation
    HKSAR v. C (A Minor)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA789/2012

    The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court will not disturb the magistrate's factual findings that PW1 was a credible witness, that the repeated forceful body contacts were intentional sexual assaults rather than accidental train movement, and that the totality of evidence was sufficient to convict under s122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance.

  • 11 Sept 2012

    HKSAR v. LI SUI HEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LI SUI HEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC304/2009

    Given the accused admitted killing both victims and the central issue at trial was whether those killings were accidental or justified, the trial judge's directions restricting similar fact evidence to rebutting self-defence/provocation and requiring separate consideration of each count were adequate in context; therefore the jury could not permissibly infer guilt on one count from conviction on the other and the convictions were safe.

  • 3 Dec 2008

    HKSAR v. WONG YING KIT

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WONG YING KIT
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC27/2008

    The conviction for robbery was quashed because the judge's reliance on the 2nd defendant's evidence was unsafe: the accomplice's account was inherently improbable on the timeline and geography, the judge failed to assess the accomplice's propensity and credibility properly, and alternative explanations for the 1st defendant's possession were not adequately considered; substitution of an alternative verdict for handling was not made because the trial judge did not make findings (or clear implications) as to the appellant's knowledge that the pendant was stolen independent of the flawed accompl…

  • 21 Nov 2008

    HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIN WILLIAM

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIN WILLIAM
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC388/2007

    The Full Court dismissed the application because the trial judge gave comprehensive, orthodox directions on burden and standard of proof, the weight to be attached to the defendant's cautioned interview, the use and relevance of prior incidents as contextual evidence for credibility (not propensity), the admissibility/use of an early contemporaneous statement to rebut an attack of recent invention, and on distress and demeanour; there was no material misdirection and the conviction was safe.