Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination on credit

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. NG FAN YING (吳藩英)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 44
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC9/2021

The magistrate did not err in restricting cross-examination because the Non-Domestic Work was collateral, the defence failed to explain relevance or lay a solid foundation or disclose unequivocal rebuttal evidence, permitting detailed inquiry would amount to a separate trial and risk unfair fishing; therefore the exercise of discretion was proper and the restrictions caused no substantial and grave injustice.
17 May 2021

HKSAR v. NG FAN YING

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1415
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA571/2019

The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in limiting cross‑examination to matters relevant to the charged periods and credibility under the principles in Wong Sau Ming; he allowed testing of frequency, period and hours where relevant, made detailed and transparent findings on PW1's credibility and motive, and the convictions based on PW1's evidence were safe; the fresh evidence application under s83V was refused because the materials could have been adduced at trial or would not have affected the verdict.
20 May 2015

F v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of COMMISSIONER

Citation

F v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of COMMISSIONER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2555/2010

The court refused to admit the Admitted Facts because they related to a separate 2012 incident and a bind-over (not a conviction), were not directly relevant to the 2007 allegations, risked opening collateral factual disputes and were more prejudicial than probative; the defendant should have sought specific discovery if it believed the documents were relevant; supplemental psychiatric comments addressing those facts were inadmissible as usurping the court's role; accordingly the application was rejected and the supplemental reports expunged with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
17 Feb 2015

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC62/2014

The court refused leave to appeal because the acquittal in ESCC 3219/2013 did not contain a finding that the undercover witness had lied and, read fairly, reflected reasonable doubt rather than a finding of untruth; that acquittal would not have had a material impact on the assessment of PW1's veracity in the instant case and Deputy Judge McMahon's refusal to admit it on appeal did not produce a substantial and grave miscarriage of justice; the magistrate's acceptance of PW1's credibility and identification evidence was plainly right and within discretion under the principles in Kong Wai Lun…
31 May 2007

HKSAR v. CHAN KA MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC254/2005

Applying Wong Sau-ming, the court found the threshold for using prior acquittals to impeach the complainant's credibility was not satisfied; the trial judge was correct to exclude evidence of earlier acquittals and his directions regarding additional allegations and prior complaints were adequate; the appeal was dismissed.
29 May 1991

THE QUEEN v. HUI CHUEN KIT

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HUI CHUEN KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC133/1990

Where a prosecution case depends solely on confessional statements alleged to be induced, the defence must be permitted relevant cross-examination into witnesses' motives and the credibility of the police officer; the trial judge's disallowance of legitimate credit-based cross-examination (on matters going to inducement) rendered the conviction unsafe and entitled the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and quash the convictions.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. NG FAN YING (吳藩英)

HKSAR v. NG FAN YING

F v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of COMMISSIONER

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG

HKSAR v. CHAN KA MAN

THE QUEEN v. HUI CHUEN KIT