Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility of undercover witness

Legal area

Court

27 May 2015

HKSAR v. SINGH SATINDER PAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SINGH SATINDER PAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC428/2014

The Court upheld both convictions: the evidence of the undercover witness was accepted and established that the 1st applicant became aware of the group's intent and did not withdraw; the 2nd applicant's plea and admissions were valid and could not be re-opened. However, the court reduced the 1st applicant's sentence from 18 months to 15 months because he was not part of the assault party and there was no evidence he knew weapons would be used, making 15 months the appropriate starting point for his lesser role.
18 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA71/2014

The prior decisions did not amount to findings that the undercover officer had lied so they were inadmissible for cross-examination under Wong Sau Ming; the magistrate was entitled to accept the undercover officer's evidence on the material facts and to infer that the appellant acted as a member of a triad; the defence witness's uncertain evidence was immaterial; accordingly the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
2 Sept 2003

HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC100/2000

Given the exceptional circumstances (very late receipt of transcript, lack of translation and legal aid, applicant's expressed desire to abandon only temporarily) the court treated the December 7, 2000 abandonment as a nullity and heard the application; after reviewing the evidence and trial directions the court concluded the jury were entitled to accept PW1's evidence and that there was no proper basis to regard the convictions as unsafe, therefore leave to appeal was dismissed.
23 Nov 2001

HKSAR v. LAM CHI CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM CHI CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA809/2001

The magistrate did not err: he thoroughly assessed PW1's credibility and the defence of framing, properly ruled the alleged oral admission voluntary and admissible for the general issue, and permissibly used the appellant's contemporaneous lack of complaint as evidence of inconsistency rather than as an adverse inference; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SINGH SATINDER PAL AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG

HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN

HKSAR v. LAM CHI CHUNG