Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recent complaint evidence

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2026

HKSAR v. EKSTROM PATRIK TOBIAS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 514
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2024

The Mohini references were admissible as part of the complainant's account of what the appellant said to coerce her, defence counsel expressly allowed and used that material making a specific uncharged‑act direction unnecessary, and there was no realistic risk of impermissible propensity reasoning; the WhatsApp voice messages, while not explicit in using the word 'rape', were made within hours, to the employer's wife, in distress and in context were capable of amounting to recent complaints of sexual wrongdoing and were admissible; the judge's directions limited the messages' use to assessing…
22 Sept 2025

HKSAR v. CHAN SZE CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 870
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC171/2023

Leave to appeal was granted on (a) whether a genuine but mistaken belief direction was required and (b) admissibility of the Sad Toefl exchange, because both were reasonably arguable; all other grounds against conviction and the appeal against sentence were refused as not reasonably arguable or lacking merit; the sentence of 8 years was not manifestly excessive and the judge’s factual findings were supportable.
12 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. EKSTROM PATRIK TOBIAS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 272
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2024

The court granted leave to appeal on Grounds 1 and 2 because those grounds were reasonably arguable — the failure to give an uncharged act direction and the admission of the voice messages as recent complaints raised arguable legal errors — and refused leave on Grounds 3 and 4 because they lacked substance or were not independently reasonably arguable.
22 Jan 2021

HKSAR v. NGAN CHUEN LI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA252/2019

The appeal against conviction was dismissed because the magistrate's findings on the core acts of indecent assault were supported by credible evidence (identity, place and mode consistent; inconsistencies were immaterial), and the recent complaint evidence had legitimate probative purpose; however, the sentence was excessive insofar as the magistrate had treated the matter as amounting to a clear breach of trust — appellate court reduced the starting point and substituted a custodial sentence of 2 months given the touching of intimate parts and the appellant's mitigation.
30 May 2019

香港特別行政區訴黃寶祺

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1297
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA602/2018

The trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence was reasonable on the facts: explanations for the complainant's conduct and omissions were credible given her age and circumstances, inconsistencies were minor (sequence and omissions) and explicable, and the defendant's alternative account was implausible; therefore the conviction was supported by evidence and the appeal was dismissed.
4 Oct 2016

香港特別行政區訴鄧兆策

Citation

香港特別行政區訴鄧兆策
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA91/2016

The appellate court held that the trial judge did not err in his credibility findings; his assessment of the complainant and corroborating witnesses was reasonable, the appellant's alternative account was inherently implausible and given the accepted evidence the prosecution proved indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction must stand.
28 Feb 2013

HKSAR v. HO YIN TING

Citation

HKSAR v. HO YIN TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2012

The judge's summing up was fair, accurate and comprehensive; the contested 6-point directions (including treatment of recent complaints, the finger-guessing conversation and previous consistent statements) were properly characterized as matters of fact or legitimate directions on credibility rather than usurpation of the jury's role; accordingly the conviction was not unsafe and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
11 Apr 2011

HKSAR v. SINGH TERSEM

Citation

HKSAR v. SINGH TERSEM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC216/2009

Convictions were unsafe because the evidence left open a realistic possibility of a lesser sexual assault and the trial judge failed to leave the alternative verdict of indecent assault; additionally the judge failed to give required directions on the independent probative use of evidence of distress, necessitating quashing of convictions and ordering a retrial.
26 Oct 2001

HKSAR v. CHAN SAU-MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SAU-MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC403/2000

The appeal is dismissed: the trial judge did not err in refusing a mandatory corroboration warning post s4B, the jury directions on the ingredients of rape and on recent complaint were adequate and not misleading, prosecutorial remarks did not breach the statutory prohibition on commenting on silence, and the sentence of seven years was not manifestly excessive given the deliberate removal of the condom, non-consensual penetration, sustained violence, threats and detention.
26 Apr 2001

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN MING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1296/2000

Because the magistrate's reasons were unhappily worded and his treatment of key evidence (recent complaint, prior statements, failure to disclose a witness, assessment of the defence witness and sketches) gave rise to doubt about the safety of the conviction, the Court of First Instance allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.