Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Video recorded evidence

  • 29 Jan 1999

    CHIM HON MAN v. HKSAR

    Citation
    CHIM HON MAN v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC3/1998

    The appeal was allowed and convictions quashed because it was an error of law to permit the prosecution to rely on evidence of multiple acts of rape to prove two counts each alleging a single act without particularising or electing such that the accused could fairly meet the charges; concurrently, the videotaped interviews were admissible under s.79C and the live link was permissible under ss.79A/79B read together, but the frailty, lack of particularity, inadequate directions and absence of corroboration rendered the convictions unsafe and no retrial was ordered.

  • 8 May 1998

    HKSAR v. CHIM HON MAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHIM HON MAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC283/1997

    The Court held that the statutory scheme for child complainants permitted the use of video-recorded examination in chief and live television cross-examination where the complainant was under the relevant age when recorded and there was no logical basis to cut off special measures once the complainant turned 17; further, where the alleged offending constituted a continuing indistinguishable course of conduct the evidence was sufficient without election and the indictment did not prejudice the defendant, so the convictions were safe.

  • 29 Apr 1997

    R v. LAM CHI KEUNG

    Citation
    R v. LAM CHI KEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1015/1996

    Sections 3 and 4 of the Evidence Ordinance permit reception of a child's unsworn evidence and the judge's failure to conduct a formal competency inquiry or to ask a formal question about truth does not render admissible evidence inadmissible; the judge retains discretion to explain the importance of truth; ss.4(1)-(2) do not contravene the Letters Patent or ICCPR; the video-recorded interview was admissible because the interviewing social worker was a government employee; appeal dismissed and convictions upheld.