Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility of complainant

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2023

HKSAR v. KIM JONG WOO

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA271/2022

The magistrate was entitled to accept PW1's clear, consistent oral evidence over the redacted personal note D1; the alleged inconsistencies were immaterial or collateral and inadvertence was not pleaded or put at trial; accordingly the convictions were safe and the appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the total sentence was reduced to six weeks' imprisonment on mitigation and totality grounds.
31 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴叶志濤

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA149/2020

The magistrate's findings on credibility and the factual findings that the appellant intentionally and indecently assaulted the complainant were reasonable, supported by the complainant's testimony and contemporaneous complaint, and the evidence proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; there was no basis on appeal to set aside the conviction.
27 Nov 2020

香港特別行政區訴 H.K.H

Citation

[2020] HKCA 951
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC61/2019

The trial judge gave adequate and balanced directions on burden and standard, the assessment of credibility and inconsistencies, the limited probative value of negative forensic findings, and the appropriate caution as to uncharged acts and potentially prejudicial material; on that basis the jury were entitled to prefer the complainant and the convictions are not unsafe, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
17 Jul 2018

HKSAR v. KONG CHI WING

Citation

[2018] HKCA 415
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC195/2017

The court refused leave because the applicant's challenges were attacks on the complainant's credibility properly for the jury, the summing‑up contained no error of law or significant misrecital of evidence, the applicant could not advance a new positive case on appeal having not testified, and therefore there were no reasonably arguable grounds for appeal.
15 Jun 2018

HKSAR v. LAM KIN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1389
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA438/2017

The conviction was quashed because the Magistrate erred in law by relying, at least to a material extent, on the complainant's subjective belief that the contact was intentional and indecent instead of applying the correct objective test to decide whether the elements of indecent assault were proved, rendering the conviction unsafe.
20 Mar 2013

HKSAR v. HO YIN TING

Citation

HKSAR v. HO YIN TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2012

The court held that the issue raised is not a point of law of great and general importance because recent complaint bears only on credibility and it is common sense that largely consistent complaints make the complainant more likely to be truthful; therefore certification under s32(2) was refused.
30 Aug 2012

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD, ISHTIAQ ASHRAF

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD, ISHTIAQ ASHRAF
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA722/2011

The magistrate's evaluation of the complainant was unsafe because she misunderstood the defence case (assessing misidentification rather than fabrication), failed to account for undisclosed psychiatric/care issues and the cumulative effect of credibility problems, and therefore the conviction based solely on unsupported evidence could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and was quashed.
18 Oct 2011

HKSAR v. CHAN HOI TAT

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOI TAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC447/2010

The trial judge, as experienced fact-finder who observed the witness, properly assessed the complainant's credibility and rejected late alibi evidence as not credible absent satisfactory explanation; therefore convictions were safe. The total sentence of five years was within range and not manifestly excessive given grooming, threats, repeated gross indecent assaults and the need for deterrence and protection of the young.
8 Apr 2011

HKSAR v. AU MAN KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. AU MAN KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA737/2010

The court upheld the magistrate's acceptance of PW1 and PW2 as credible witnesses, finding inconsistencies to be minor and immaterial, that the magistrate had properly considered delay and alleged motive and was not required to give a special cautionary direction, and therefore the prosecutions case was proved beyond reasonable doubt on both charges.
9 Apr 2009

HKSAR v. THAPA RAJU

Citation

HKSAR v. THAPA RAJU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC343/2008

The conviction was quashed because material omissions and inconsistencies in the complainant's contemporaneous police statement—particularly the failure to mention recognition from a prior encounter that supplied motive and the conflicting description of the assailant's complexion—undermined the reliability of the identification and rendered the conviction unsafe.