Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination on previous convictions

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. MORROW JR CHARLES RAYMOND

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC292/2020

Because the accused expressly testified to good character and denial of drug involvement, the judge exercised discretion under section 54(1)(f)(ii) to permit limited cross-examination: leave was granted to impeach credibility with the proved methamphetamine conviction (81 months) as established by available judgment material, but refused for other alleged road‑traffic and historical convictions where proof relied only on a DEA memorandum or was indeterminate (including a 1992 drugs entry) because of insufficient reliable proof and risk of unfair prejudice; the jury must be directed to use the…
16 Oct 2020

HKSAR v. LAU KA SHING

Citation

[2020] HKCA 834
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC292/2018

The application for a certificate was refused because the law is settled that imputations against prosecution witnesses engage s54(1)(f)(ii) even if necessary to the defence and the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to permit limited cross-examination on prior convictions; appellate interference is inappropriate absent error in principle or lack of material, and no new exception (including for an 'overwhelming' prosecution case) was warranted.
1 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. LAU KA SHING

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1228
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC292/2018

Leave to appeal against conviction refused because the trial judge gave directions consistent with Specimen Direction 39 and properly exercised discretion to permit cross-examination on previous convictions; leave to appeal against sentence granted because the arithmetic enhancement to the starting point (and its justification by asserted export intention despite the applicant being a mule) warranted further appellate scrutiny.
17 Dec 1997

HKSAR v. CHAN HING CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HING CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC375/1997

The conviction was quashed because cross-examination and answers relating to bad character (including disclosure of an acquittal) and the trial judge's failure to give the required directions on bad character, together with material factual misstatements in the summing-up and inappropriate judicial interruptions, produced material irregularities that rendered the conviction unsafe; a retrial was ordered.
22 Sept 1995

R. v. MAK KWOK LAM and Another

Citation

R. v. MAK KWOK LAM and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC609/1994

The Court upheld the trial judge's rulings: the trial judge was entitled to reject the post-recorded signed statements yet accept that the antecedent oral admissions before different officers were freely and voluntarily made; the judge properly exercised discretion on joinder, cross-examination on previous convictions, and refused to discharge the jury; no demonstrated agreement breach or real prejudice warranted interference. Accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the convictions stood.
25 Aug 1987

THE QUEEN v. SIU KA CHEONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SIU KA CHEONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC124/1987

The trial judge validly exercised his discretion to admit cross-examination on prior convictions; the admitted possession of the packet contained a quantity sufficient to raise the presumption of trafficking which was not rebutted on the evidence; absent any misapprehension of facts by the trial judge, the Court of Appeal will not overturn his assessment, and leave to appeal is refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. MORROW JR CHARLES RAYMOND

HKSAR v. LAU KA SHING

HKSAR v. LAU KA SHING

HKSAR v. CHAN HING CHI

R. v. MAK KWOK LAM and Another

THE QUEEN v. SIU KA CHEONG