Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recent fabrication

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. AHMED SHAHNWAZ

Citation

[2022] HKCA 143
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the grounds advanced were reasonably arguable: the trial judge remedied any prejudice caused by prosecutorial reference to 'recent fabrication', gave comprehensive and legally correct directions (including on prior inconsistencies and jury queries about certainty), the procedural bar on recalling witnesses post‑close of evidence applied, and there was no arguable unfairness from police investigation or alleged 'set-up' evidence to justify leave.
29 Nov 1996

THE QUEEN v. MA CHAK-KAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MA CHAK-KAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC777/1995

Because the trial judge's comments indicated she may have treated significant parts of the applicant's untested evidence as irrelevant rather than as matters going to weight, and because the point was not clarified or the witnesses recalled, the conviction could not be regarded as safe; the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.
25 May 1989

THE QUEEN v. HUI CHUNG MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HUI CHUNG MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC432/1988

Mr Yu's evidence was inadmissible because the complainant's evidence had not been challenged as a recent fabrication and the prior consistent statement did not meet the narrow admissibility criteria; because the inadmissible evidence may have affected the jury's verdict the court could not apply the proviso to s.83 to sustain the convictions, so the convictions were quashed.
9 Jun 1980

CHOI CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHOI CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1048/1979

The trial judge did not err in admitting the accomplice's earlier cautioned statement because the cross-examination, in the factual context of immunity and inconsistent prior accounts, sufficiently impugned credibility as recent fabrication and the prior statement was substantially similar and rationally tended to answer the attack; the inadvertent jury awareness of an excluded statement of the 3rd appellant was an error rendered harmless by timely and effective judicial direction; and the summing-up, read as a whole, adequately instructed the jury on corroboration, misdirections were not pre…

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. AHMED SHAHNWAZ

THE QUEEN v. MA CHAK-KAI

THE QUEEN v. HUI CHUNG MING

CHOI CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN