Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination rights

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AU YUK KWAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AU YUK KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2923/2015

The court directed that affidavits or affirmations filed by the Secretary for Justice shall stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents provided they attend trial for cross-examination, subject to the trial judge's discretion to require oral evidence in whole or in part; this was justified by the need to promote efficient administration of justice and Civil Justice Reform objectives and because no real prejudice to respondents was shown.
16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LOU TIT MAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LOU TIT MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2931/2015

The court granted the direction that the affidavits or affirmations filed by the Secretary for Justice shall stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents provided they attend trial to be cross-examined, because the affidavits did not demonstrably prejudice the respondents, the direction promotes efficient administration and Civil Justice Reform, and the trial judge retains discretion to order oral evidence in chief of any witness where fairness requires it.
16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU SUI YING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU SUI YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2924/2015

The court granted the applicant's direction because case management and efficiency considerations justified permitting the Secretary for Justice's affidavits or affirmations to stand as evidence in chief provided deponents attend for cross-examination, no real prejudice had been shown, and the trial judge retains discretion to require oral evidence of any witness in whole or in part.
16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN AO TIEN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN AO TIEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2928/2015

The court granted the Secretary for Justice's direction as an exercise of case management power: affidavits/affirmations filed by the Secretary for Justice shall stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents provided they attend trial to be cross-examined, subject to the trial judge's power to order that the evidence in chief of any particular witness (in whole or in part) be given orally; this balances efficiency and the respondents' right to a fair trial and avoids demonstrated prejudice.
16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG HON LAM

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG HON LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2932/2015

As a matter of case management the court will permit the affidavits or affirmations filed by the Secretary for Justice to stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents provided they attend trial for cross-examination, because the court has discretion to do so, the practice promotes efficient administration of justice and Civil Justice Reform objectives, and no real prejudice to respondents has been shown; the trial judge may nevertheless order oral evidence in chief of any witness if fairness requires.
16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WING WAH

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WING WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2930/2015

The court exercised its case management power to permit the Secretary for Justice's affidavits and affirmations to stand as the evidence in chief of deponents at trial provided they attend for cross-examination, because no real prejudice was shown and fairness is preserved by leaving the trial judge discretion to require oral evidence in whole or in part; accordingly directions were made consolidating the matters and fixing trial management steps.
16 Dec 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. MAN FOR ON

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. MAN FOR ON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2918/2015

The court exercised case-management discretion to order that affidavits/affirmations filed by the Secretary for Justice shall stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents provided they attend trial for cross-examination, subject to the trial judge's power to direct that any witness give evidence in chief orally; this balances efficiency under the Civil Justice Reform with protection against real prejudice and preserves fairness.
2 Jun 2016

HKSAR v. CHAN HON BIU

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HON BIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC465/2011

The Court refused leave because the hotel room admission was properly recorded and put to the applicant in the subsequent video interview, the judge’s directions were legally adequate and non‑speculative, the SMS evidence together with the applicant’s conduct in the hotel provided sufficient circumstantial proof of knowledge and intent, and the Macau Letter of Request process and defence representation did not cause unfairness sufficient to render the conviction unsafe.
3 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR, also know as HUI SI YAN RAFAEL AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR, also know as HUI SI YAN RAFAEL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC98/2013

The judge exercised discretion not to recall the prosecution witness Agnes Leung because, on balance, the interests of justice were better served by leaving matters as they stood: recall posed real risks of prejudice and uncertainty for the defence, could unduly focus and surprise the jury, and was not necessary given the available course of comment in summing-up.
15 Feb 2007

HKSAR v. WONG YAM FAN

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG YAM FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA725/2006

The magistrate's findings that the appellant represented herself as owner and that no formal tenancy agreement existed were supported by the evidence (PW1, PW2 and admitted tenancy documents); the advertisement was not adduced at trial so could not undermine those findings; new matters raised on appeal were not material nor properly before the trial court; therefore the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and must be upheld.