Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of identification evidence

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2020

HKSAR v. SINGH POPINDER AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2432
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC290/2019

The judge accepted PW1's evidence that he knew the defendants before the attack and used internet images only to illustrate their appearance to police; any risk that PW1 had been influenced by Facebook images (the displacement effect) was for the jury to assess and did not mandate exclusion. The confrontational identification chosen by D2 was voluntary and conducted fairly. Consequently the contested identification parade evidence was admissible and should be left to the jury.
16 Nov 2005

HKSAR v. TANG CHUN YU

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG CHUN YU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA761/2005

Although the police were justified in inviting the victim to view the group and in arresting the appellant on that basis, a formal identification parade was required thereafter; the dock identification was a material irregularity rendering the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.
20 May 2003

HKSAR v. CHOI MAN KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI MAN KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC644/2002

The Court upheld the trial judge's fact findings that PW4 had a sufficient and good opportunity to observe the applicant in well‑lit conditions, applied the Turnbull directions correctly, found the identification credible and reliable, and concluded the conviction was not unsafe; appeal dismissed.
5 Oct 2001

LO HO CHUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

LO HO CHUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC28/2001

The Committee held there was no reasonably arguable case that a substantial or grave injustice had been caused by the identified breach of police code; the appellate judge lawfully exercised her power under s.119(1)(d) of the Magistrates Ordinance rather than applying the s.83 proviso, and therefore leave to appeal was properly refused.
29 Aug 1989

RE CHUEN SAU KAM

Citation

RE CHUEN SAU KAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1377/1989

Successive adjournments and remands that substantively fix a hearing timetable within the treaty time limit satisfied the magistrate's obligations under Section 8(2) and Article VIII; the applicant had no right to insist on formal production of the Letter of Request; the photographic identification was unnecessary given other identification evidence, and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
20 Sept 1988

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU CHI-TIN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU CHI-TIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA300/1988

The magistrate erred in disallowing dock identifications and in requiring descriptive foundations where witnesses had repeatedly seen the alleged blackmailers and the victim had identified them to the arresting police; a dock identification was permissible in those circumstances and the appropriate remedy was to remit the case for retrial by another magistrate.
2 Aug 1984

THE QUEEN v. LI KWOK AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LI KWOK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC167/1984

The Court held that the identification parade was not so unfair nor was the risk that a witness saw the defendant before the parade sufficiently likely to render the identification unsafe; the judge gave adequate directions about misidentification and it was therefore proper for the jury to act on the identification evidence, so the appeal is dismissed and convictions are upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SINGH POPINDER AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. TANG CHUN YU

HKSAR v. CHOI MAN KIN

LO HO CHUNG v. HKSAR

RE CHUEN SAU KAM

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU CHI-TIN AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. LI KWOK AND ANOTHER