Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of prior convictions

Legal area

Court

30 May 2019

HKSAR v. CHOI LAI CHU, CONNIE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 612
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC89/2016

The judge lawfully exercised his discretion to allow cross‑examination on prior convictions after the applicant impugned police credibility, gave adequate directions to cure any prejudice, the summing‑up comments (including on fingerprints) were legitimate common‑sense or neutral observations and not prejudicial, no evidential basis required a direction on duress, and the sentence was within the guideline range for the quantity of ICE involved and therefore appropriate; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and appeals dismissed.
5 Sept 2018

HKSAR v. CHAU YUI MING

Citation

[2018] HKCA 569
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC441/2015

By majority the Court held that the prosecution were entitled to charge all seized drugs in a single count, the judge’s ‘all or nothing’ direction was a lawful and defensible response to the defence’s tactical position (and to the way the case was run), juries are presumed to follow directions and there was no duty to canvass every conceivable factual permutation or to split the indictment here; admission of the applicant’s prior convictions was within the judge’s discretion and cross‑examination did not unlawfully draw adverse inference from silence. Accordingly leave to appeal and the appea…
17 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. BRAIN, ALFRED HALL, aka BRIAN ALFRED HALL, aka ASANTE JOHN OS

Citation

HKSAR v. BRAIN, ALFRED HALL, aka BRIAN ALFRED HALL, aka ASANTE JOHN OS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA555/2013

The magistrate's credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence; the Important Notice was not shown to be authentic and issues of forgery had been properly decided in earlier proceedings; prior convictions were admissible for impeachment; appellant was not deprived of a fair trial by lack of retained counsel; disclosure requests were irrelevant; therefore convictions were affirmed and appeal dismissed.
23 Sept 2015

WAI CHUN INCORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. 羅民基

Citation

WAI CHUN INCORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. 羅民基
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1980/2012

The court held the defendant owed a duty of care to both the employer (1st plaintiff) and to the car owner (2nd plaintiff); there was no bailment relationship. The plaintiffs failed to prove loss of the first car was caused by the defendant but proved breach of duty in respect of the second car where the defendant left the key unattended, causally contributing to its loss. Theft by third parties did not break the chain of causation because theft was a foreseeable consequence of negligent loss or insecure custody of keys. Damages awarded were limited to proven loss (cost of new security and ke…
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.
21 Jan 2011

SONY RAI v. MR. WILLIAM NG, ESQ., THE CORONER OF HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

SONY RAI v. MR. WILLIAM NG, ESQ., THE CORONER OF HONG KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL85/2010

The court held the coroner did not misapply the law: he recognised the wider Middleton principles but properly exercised discretion to limit inquiry, correctly balanced public interest immunity against relevance and probative value and reasonably admitted prior violent convictions; omissions complained of (narrative verdict, murder direction, alleged bias) were not legally or factually material and the judicial review is dismissed.
5 Sept 2001

HKSAR v. CHENG PUI MAN, DICKY

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG PUI MAN, DICKY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA651/2001

The real danger test applies; the magistrate did not err in refusing a trial de novo because she expressly dismissed the evidence of prior convictions from her mind, the disclosure did not reveal the actual prior offences, and on the whole of the evidence there was no real danger of bias; appeal dismissed and conviction upheld.
30 Sept 1998

HKSAR v. CHAN MAN PING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN MAN PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC286/1998

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the trial judge properly found, on the admissible evidence (pawn shop pledge and victim identification), that the applicant knew the necklace was stolen and expressly did not rely on the prior conviction, so there was no basis to disturb the conviction.
17 Nov 1990

THE QUEEN v. TAM CHUNG SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TAM CHUNG SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC405/1988

The appeals were allowed and convictions quashed because, on the totality of errors and circumstances, the convictions were unsafe: the trial judge's directions inadequately limited the jury's use of D3's out-of-court statement, his directions on lies were ambiguous and potentially misleading, and the admission of very similar previous convictions (which were subsequently quashed) was unduly prejudicial and rendered the trial unfair; a Kevin Brown direction was unnecessary in this case given that dishonesty was the essential element and the jury could consider cumulative circumstantial eviden…
17 Aug 1988

THE QUEEN v. TSANG SIT KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSANG SIT KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC138/1988

There is no statutory requirement that leave be obtained under s54(1)(f) before cross-examination on prior convictions; however the trial judge has a discretion to exclude such questioning if its prejudicial effect outweighs probative value. In the present case the prosecutor's questions were justified by the applicant's own evidence and the judge's interventions did not amount to a denial of a fair trial, therefore the application for leave to appeal is refused.