Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay in reporting

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2024

香港特別行政區訴黃思豪

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2334
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA247/2023

On rehearing the court concluded the trial judge acted within permissible evaluative bounds: there was no proper evidential basis to invoke an honest but mistaken belief defence; WhatsApp exchanges and other background were rightly considered but did not undermine complainant credibility; inconsistencies were immaterial; the judge's credibility findings were justified and the convictions were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
11 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. CHAN MO SAN MICHAEL

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 68
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA98/2023

On rehearing the court found material errors and unfairness in the magistrate's treatment of photographic and CCTV evidence, failure to require or consider contemporaneous phone records and medical documentation adequately, and material inconsistencies in prosecution witness evidence and motive that undermined the safety of the conviction; accordingly the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
20 Feb 2023

丘其雍對律政司司長代表康文署

Citation

[2023] HKDC 204
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2027/2019

Court found on the balance that the claimant did lift the goal frame but rejected that the lifting caused the diagnosed right forearm injury because of inconsistent versions, late reporting and treatment, lack of contemporaneous medical evidence, and documentary and witness inconsistencies; claim dismissed.
14 May 2020

律政司司長訴陳志滔

Citation

[2020] HKCA 296
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR6/2018

The Court dismissed the prosecution's review. The original concurrent 12‑month probation orders were not manifestly inadequate because the offences, although serious and causing trauma, were committed when the defendant was a juvenile (about 14), there was insufficient basis to treat the relationship as a breach of trust warranting heavier sentence, the very long delay and defendant's subsequent rehabilitation and positive personal circumstances justified a non‑custodial disposition, and imprisonment of a juvenile is a last resort.
31 Dec 2019

香港特別行政區訴黃巍

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2986
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA282/2019

The trial judge carefully evaluated all evidence including demeanour, contemporaneous WhatsApp/WeChat messages, inconsistencies and reasons for delayed reporting, and lawfully concluded the complainant was credible and the appellant's account implausible; no legal error in treating absence of motive to fabricate as part of the credibility assessment because the issue had been traversed in cross‑examination and the judge gave independent, detailed reasons; appellate court defers to trial judge and upholds conviction.
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.
6 Apr 2011

NGAI TAT WAH v. ZUNG FU CO LTD

Citation

NGAI TAT WAH v. ZUNG FU CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC468/2010

On the balance of probabilities the judge preferred the employer's evidence that there was no contemporaneous report or evidence of a work-related sprain on 29 May 2008 and that the claimant's symptom recurrence was more likely due to pre-existing degenerative spinal disease; claimant failed to discharge the burden to show the alleged work event more probably caused or materially contributed to his condition, so the claim is dismissed.
18 Aug 2010

HKSAR v. RAI MOTI RAM

Citation

HKSAR v. RAI MOTI RAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA351/2010

The magistrate lawfully assessed the complainant as credible; the identified discrepancies between the complainant's court evidence and PW5's account were not material, were explicable by delay and context, and did not undermine the prosecution case, so the convictions were properly upheld.
21 Jun 2010

LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD

Citation

LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC120/2007

The court rejected the claimant's account as not credible on the balance of probabilities given inconsistencies, delayed reporting and medical records; found no proven 3rd accident causing injury and dismissed both the personal injury and employees' compensation claims.
19 Sept 2007

HKSAR v. KAN WAI HO

Citation

HKSAR v. KAN WAI HO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA134/2007

The magistrate's acceptance of the victim's evidence was entitled to deference because the inconsistencies with PW2 and PW3 were not material, the magistrate rejected the appellant's account as not credible, and the touching in the second incident (crown of head down to waist including contact with brassiere strap over clothing) would be regarded by right‑minded people as indecent and was intended by the appellant; accordingly the convictions were upheld.