Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hostile witness

  • 7 Mar 2022

    HKSAR v. WAHAJ FYAZ

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 316
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC87/2018

    The Court held the judge gave clear and adequate directions on inferential reasoning, did not shift the burden onto the defence, and properly instructed the jury on how to treat PW18's prior statements (which were not adopted and were put to assess reliability). The third video-recorded interview had been adduced as an admitted fact (a tactical defence decision). The expert pathology evidence did not create such a conflict as to render the trial unsafe and the jury were properly directed on the medical issues. No material irregularity rendered the trial unsafe and, in any event, the proviso w…

  • 12 Apr 2018

    HKSAR v. KHAN CHANGAZ

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 197
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC117/2017

    Given the extraordinary circumstances of a defence-called witness who had earlier admitted ownership of the drugs then disavowed that admission, and the attendant risk the jury might misuse that lie as proof of guilt, the judge rightly gave a lies direction; the directions on hostile witness creditworthiness and the remainder of the summing up were adequate in context and any minor verbal slip did not produce a miscarriage of justice; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed.

  • 6 Nov 2014

    HKSAR v. TANG WAI LEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TANG WAI LEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC50/2014

    The judge concluded Mme Chow's in-court testimony was blatantly inconsistent with her earlier police statement on multiple material points, satisfying the standard under section 12 Evidence Ordinance to declare her a hostile witness; leave was granted to the prosecution to cross-examine her subject to laying the foundation of the previous statement and affording the witness an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies.

  • 9 Oct 1998

    HKSAR v. CHAN KAM LUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN KAM LUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA497/1998

    The Magistrate's assessment that the prosecution established an unwarranted demand with menaces and that the appellant was not credible was supported by the evidence and proper application of law; the training centre order was within sentencing discretion and not manifestly excessive, hence the appeal was dismissed.

  • 22 Mar 1996

    R. v. SO FONG CHAP

    Citation
    R. v. SO FONG CHAP
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC150/1995

    The appeal was refused because the trial judge gave adequate directions that cured any inadvertent prejudicial references, properly instructed the jury on how to treat the hostile witness and the applicant's complaints, and there was no demonstrable unfairness or legal error justifying discharge or appellate intervention; therefore the conviction could not be regarded as unsafe.

  • 17 Nov 1990

    THE QUEEN v. TAM CHUNG SHING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. TAM CHUNG SHING AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC405/1988

    The appeals were allowed and convictions quashed because, on the totality of errors and circumstances, the convictions were unsafe: the trial judge's directions inadequately limited the jury's use of D3's out-of-court statement, his directions on lies were ambiguous and potentially misleading, and the admission of very similar previous convictions (which were subsequently quashed) was unduly prejudicial and rendered the trial unfair; a Kevin Brown direction was unnecessary in this case given that dishonesty was the essential element and the jury could consider cumulative circumstantial eviden…

  • 9 Oct 1990

    THE QUEEN v. LAI HUNG WAI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LAI HUNG WAI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC607/1989

    The judge's directions were adequate: he correctly explained the specific intent requirement for murder and the effect of intoxication, properly directed the jury on provocation in accordance with R v Camplin (including age), there was no basis for a special warning about the hostile witness as no prior inconsistent statement was proved, self-defence was rightly withdrawn for lack of evidential foundation, and the other complained-of matters were not such as to render the conviction unsafe; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

  • 17 Jul 1990

    THE QUEEN v. CHOI HOK MAN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHOI HOK MAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC16/1989

    The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declaring a witness hostile without a prior voir dire and in admitting and testing her written, identified statements under s.12; re-examination of a hostile witness was within judicial discretion given the circumstances; a judge may properly tell a jury they may place little weight on a hostile witness. However the trial judge's directions on self-defence were inadequate because they failed to direct the jury to assess the accused's actions in the context of his position as a person under attack and to apply common‑sense standards to reasonable…

  • 5 Jan 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHUNG KING CHOR AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHUNG KING CHOR AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC535/1987

    The convictions were quashed because the identification evidence was conflicted and unreliable and the trial judge impermissibly relied on hearsay (the inspector's account of the witness pointing out the defendants), rendering the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory.