Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Uncorroborated evidence

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. C.T.

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 59
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC3/2018

Leave to appeal was granted because there are arguable questions of law concerning the adequacy of standard jury directions in sexual offence trials where the complainant is the sole direct witness, and concerning the proper appellate approach to verdicts that are not logically inconsistent but rest on uncorroborated complainant evidence; it was reasonably arguable that the jury's divergent verdicts resulted in substantial and grave injustice to the applicant.
5 May 2003

CHEUNG WAI MING v. HKSAR

Citation

CHEUNG WAI MING v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC15/2003

There is no general duty in Hong Kong to give a standard warning to juries about the inherent dangers of prison informer evidence; any warning must be case specific. Given statutory abrogation of former warning rules and the specific cautions given by the trial judge in this case, the failure pleaded did not establish substantial and grave injustice and leave to appeal was refused.
6 Aug 1998

HKSAR v. TANG KWOK KUI

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG KWOK KUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA521/1998

The Magistrate was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence and to disbelieve aspects of the appellant's account; the inconsistencies did not create a lurking doubt and the conviction is safe. The original 21-day sentence was within guideline but was reduced to 14 days to account for time already spent in custody and specific mitigation (family illness and employment), with the 14 days regarded as served.
5 Jun 1998

HKSAR v. SHEK CHI CHIU

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEK CHI CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1178/1997

Appeal allowed because the Magistrate failed to make clear he had the risk of convicting on uncorroborated evidence in mind and did not give the required corroboration warning in a sexual offence case, rendering the conviction unsafe; additional evidential doubts reinforced that conclusion.
30 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. TSANG YEE TAO

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG YEE TAO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC719/1996

Exclusion by the trial judge of cross-examination on matters that were essential to the defence and directly relevant to the complainant's credibility and motive rendered the trial unfair; the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions because the judge ought to have permitted those lines of cross-examination.
11 Apr 1997

R. v. WU CHI WAI

Citation

R. v. WU CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC230/1996

The trial judge's questioning of the accused, combined with adverse comments and failure to afford the accused opportunity to respond, amounted to material irregularity that created a real danger of tipping the scales against the applicant in a one‑person's‑word‑against‑another case; accordingly the convictions were unsafe and were quashed, and a retrial was refused as unjust in all the circumstances.
19 Jan 1994

WONG YUN TSAN v. R.

Citation

WONG YUN TSAN v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC436/1993

The court held the application for leave to appeal was without merit because the trial judge, although not reciting Turnbull or fixed formulae, thoroughly considered the quality of identification evidence (lighting, duration, subsequent view), was aware of and guarded against dock identification dangers, properly treated the risks of uncorroborated evidence and gave adequate weight to the accused's good character including both limbs relevant to Vye; therefore the conviction was safe and the leave application is dismissed.
23 Jun 1992

THE QUEEN v. WONG PING SUM

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG PING SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA70/1992

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's reasons were sufficient to show awareness of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated testimony and he was properly satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the complainant's credibility; the additional points raised by the appellant did not render the conviction unsafe.
14 Jan 1991

THE QUEEN v. TSANG SIU HUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSANG SIU HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA937/1990

Given the sole reliance on the complainant's uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence, her identification occurring months after the events, and the acquittal of a co-accused on substantially identical evidence, the court had a lurking doubt about the safety of the verdict and therefore the conviction and sentence were unsafe and were set aside.
10 Aug 1988

THE QUEEN v. IP CHUNG HANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. IP CHUNG HANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC345/1988

Leave to appeal (out of time) was refused because the explanation for delay was unsatisfactory and, on an exceptional review of the merits, the proposed grounds lacked substance: the trial judge's directions on uncorroborated evidence and the parallels with the accused's statement were precise, clear and fair and no substantial and plainly arguable ground was demonstrated to justify extending time.