Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of lies in evidence

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2015

HKSAR v. LAI KWAI PO

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KWAI PO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC313/2014

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against conviction on grounds 1–3 as reasonably arguable (the sufficiency of the inference of trafficking, the use of the lie without independent evidence, and the judge's treatment of addiction/evidence on ketamine use) and refused leave on ground 4 and refused leave to appeal sentence because no error was shown in the trial judge's exercise of sentencing discretion.
1 Apr 2014

HKSAR v. LAM YING YU

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM YING YU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC320/2012

The applicant's own evidence established a significant failure to keep a proper lookout (driving with tunnel vision while emotionally distracted), which fell far below the standard of a competent and careful driver and therefore satisfied the objective test for dangerous driving; that dangerous driving was causally linked to the deceased's death (more than de minimis); although the trial judge erred in relying on an alternative finding of deliberate ignoring of signs, the primary finding (failure to keep proper lookout) was sustainable and justified conviction; sentence was excessive on the b…
6 Dec 2000

HKSAR v. TSANG CHIU WONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG CHIU WONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC63/2000

The Court upheld the convictions because the trial judge properly applied Turnbull principles, carefully considered discrepancies, observed witness demeanour, and was entitled to prefer PW2's identification evidence; the alleged lie by D1 was treated as a credibility issue supporting rejection of his alibi but not as sole proof of guilt, and the identification was reliable beyond reasonable doubt given the temporal and spatial proximity of sightings.
11 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC10/1998

The judge's directions on lies and alibi, read in full context, were adequate and did not shift the burden of proof; therefore the conviction stands; the sentence of 11 years is proportionate to the serious, planned, violent and organised nature of the robbery and is not excessive, so the sentence is upheld.
2 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. TAM KAI CHENG

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM KAI CHENG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC148/1996

The trial judge's directions on the accused's lies were legally adequate: where lies are proved and the jury are satisfied they were not for innocent reasons, those lies can properly strengthen an inference of guilt; applying that principle to the evidence (principally of Szeto and Chan) the convictions were not unsafe and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Feb 1998

HKSAR v. CHOI GIN NGON AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI GIN NGON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC570/1997

The Court held that, on the whole of the admissible evidence (documents, communications, witness testimony and conduct), the trial judge legitimately found that D3 and D4 knowingly dealt with cargo with intent to assist export without a manifest; the judge validly treated deliberate, material lies as reinforcing other evidence; a District Judge is not required to state all jury-style directions in reasons for verdict; identification of the assisted party is unnecessary under s.18A; accordingly convictions of D3 and D4 are safe and D1's sentence is not manifestly excessive.
8 Dec 1994

ANASTASIUS CHIU v. R.

Citation

ANASTASIUS CHIU v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC730/1993

The trial judge did not rely on the statutory presumption in s.29(6)(a)(i) to convict; he reached an inevitable conclusion of guilty knowledge from the evidence and permissible inferences; although the judge's reference to lies as "evidence of guilty knowledge" was an unfortunate lapse, it did not render the convictions unsafe and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Jul 1994

HO CHE-CHUNG v. R.

Citation

HO CHE-CHUNG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/1993

Because prosecuting counsel expressly invited the jury to infer guilt from the appellant's alleged lies and no Lucas direction was given, the trial judge misdirected the jury; that misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe and the appeal must be allowed and convictions set aside.
7 May 1993

R. v. FONG Chee-kin and Another

Citation

R. v. FONG Chee-kin and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC327/1992

Because the judge's reasons demonstrated he did not rely on the applicants' lies as part of the proof of guilt and he properly considered and drew permissible inferences as to knowledge from the whole of the evidence, no Broadhurst direction was required and the convictions should stand; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
20 Dec 1991

THE QUEEN v. MAN WAI KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MAN WAI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC403/1990

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge misdirected the jury by failing to instruct them to assess the reasonableness of defensive force in light of the defendant's honest belief (per Beckford), and wrongly excluded the properly raised issue of accidental death in the course of self‑defence from the jury; those misdirections required quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.