Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rebuttal evidence

Legal area

Court

19 Oct 2020

HKSAR v. NG YAN KIN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC329/2018

The court refused the prosecution's application to call psychiatric experts in rebuttal after the close of the defence; the prosecution must call its psychiatric expert evidence within its own case absent good reason to split the case, and on these facts no such good reason existed because the issue was foreseeable and allowing rebuttal would unfairly give the prosecution the last word; the prosecution may revisit the application after hearing defence evidence.
21 Apr 2016

HKSAR v. TSANG KAI ON

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG KAI ON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC177/2015

The court held the recall and additional expert calculations were properly permitted because the defence raised a new line of attack ex improviso by adducing evidence of multiple male relatives; the DNA match (including relative-based probabilities) yielded extremely low chances of coincidental match and the indirect-transfer scenarios were speculative and implausible given how the item was stored, therefore the conviction was safe and must be upheld.
10 Jul 2009

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/2007

Refusal to reopen: the proposed evidence was of low and peripheral probative value for the issues to be decided; the Plaintiff failed to show sufficient due diligence in procuring and disclosing the evidence before trial; permitting the evidence would be unfair and prejudicial to the 1st Defendant and likely disrupt the trial schedule; therefore the interests of justice required refusal of the application.
7 Apr 1995

R. v. Cheng Shui

Citation

R. v. Cheng Shui
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC299/1994

Because the Crown was permitted to call extensive rebuttal evidence aimed solely at impeaching the appellant's credibility and the trial judge failed to give a clear direction on how the jury should treat lies, there was a real danger the jury equated lying with guilt; the convictions were therefore unsafe and were quashed with no retrial ordered.
19 Sept 1989

THE QUEEN v. LAU YUK YING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU YUK YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA663/1989

The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's finding that the presumption of trafficking had not been rebutted was influenced by cross-examination that infringed Section 54(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance; accordingly the conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking was unsafe and was quashed and substituted with a conviction for simple possession, and the sentence was reduced proportionately.
10 Aug 1989

THE QUEEN v. SZETO YUEN-ON AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SZETO YUEN-ON AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC72/1989

A chopper did not fall within s27(1) as an article for use in connection with burglary, theft or cheat and therefore the defendant was not guilty of going equipped; moreover, the Crown was entitled to call rebuttal evidence once the receipts were produced in the defence case because receipts were not before the court until produced and became a matter in issue at that time, permitting rebuttal evidence notwithstanding the prosecution's prior knowledge that such receipts might be relied on.
24 Mar 1976

NG WAN-FEI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

NG WAN-FEI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC256/1976

The convictions were unsafe and must be quashed because the magistrate probably was influenced by improperly admitted rebuttal evidence and the appellate court could not assess the contested confessions in the absence of the exhibited notebooks.
30 Jun 1971

CHEUNG POR v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHEUNG POR v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC293/1971

The appellate court upheld the magistrate's credibility findings and conclusion that the disputed document was not signed by the passenger after considering competing experts; the magistrate did not err in assessing evidence, rejecting the appellant's account, or in admitting and considering rebuttal expert evidence, and accordingly the conviction for driving while disqualified was sustained and the appeal dismissed.