Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and inconsistent statements

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃華君

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA319/2024

On re‑hearing the court found the magistrate's conclusion that the appellant's inconsistent accounts, omissions in contemporaneous police records, and demonstrable untruths at trial constituted conduct amounting to 'self‑suspicion' was supported by the evidence and lawful; that conduct justified the magistrate's discretionary refusal to award defence costs despite conviction only for careless driving, and therefore the appeal against the costs refusal fails.
14 May 2020

香港特別行政區訴鄭耀揚

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA392/2019

The judge correctly exercised her discretion to refuse costs: the appellant gave inconsistent, evasive and implausible accounts about staying at an alternative lodging, admitted conduct in interview that invited suspicion, and the evidential absence of his name in the hotel's dynamic register combined with his contradictory statements justified finding he had invited suspicion and misled investigators; therefore despite acquittal the costs order was properly refused.
5 Aug 2016

HKSAR v. LI KA WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LI KA WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA664/2015

The court held that an agent who receives bets on behalf of a bookmaker by way of trade or business can be convicted under s7(1)(a) of the Gambling Ordinance; the Magistrate's adverse credibility findings based on inconsistent statements were justified and not plainly wrong; the earlier guilty plea, having been set aside, did not entitle the appellant to mitigation credit; and the forfeiture of HK$417,000 under s26 was lawful because the statutory language is wide enough to capture the cash as used in or connected with unlawful gambling.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 黃華君

香港特別行政區 訴 鄭耀揚

HKSAR v. LI KA WAI

香港特別行政區訴黃華君

香港特別行政區訴鄭耀揚