R. v. Chang Siu Ming
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 833/1995 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 December 1995.
1. This was an appeal against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The only point on the appeal and the reason for my having to allow the appeal was simply that the learned Magistrate stated in his findings that he accepted the evidence from the prosecution as credible and rejected the evidence of the defence witness. But he did so without giving any reason whatsoever for making that decision. It is almost trite law that a magistrate in his findings must give defendants reaso
Cited by 3 cases
|
HCMA000833/1995 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 833 OF 1995 ______________
______________ Coram: Hon. Duffy J. in Court Date of hearing: 7 December 1995 Date of handing down judgment: 13 December 1995 ________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ 1. This was an appeal against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The only point on the appeal and the reason for my having to allow the appeal was simply that the learned Magistrate stated in his findings that he accepted the evidence from the prosecution as credible and rejected the evidence of the defence witness. But he did so without giving any reason whatsoever for making that decision. It is almost trite law that a magistrate in his findings must give defendants reasons why they are being convicted, and that includes stating why it is that he prefers the evidence of the prosecution to the evidence of the defence. There are innumerable authorities to that effect. The appeal must be allowed.
Representation: Mr Johnny Chan, C.C., for Crown Mr Keith Aderberg & Mr Simon Ng (M/s Kitty So & Tong) for Appellant |
Other judgments that cite this case