The Hong Kong High Court has quashed a man's conviction after ruling that the victim and key witness had identified the wrong person at the trial.
Police had arrested Philip Cheung Wen-po for allegedly stealing a wallet from a female victim's handbag in a bar. There was no identification parade before his trial.
At the initial hearing in the Eastern Court the prosecution asked the victim and her friend, who was also at the bar on the night of the incident, to identify the thief. The pair pointed to a uniformed officer who was alone in the dock, rather than Cheung. However, the court mistakenly thought that they had both picked out the defendant. The victim and her friend also described the thief as having short hair and balding, which matched the officer's hairstyle,but not Cheung's.
Cheung represented himself since he did not have a lawyer, and carried out the cross-examination. When he questioned the victim and her friend, they thought they were speaking to the defence lawyer and referred to the thief in the third person when responding. The court failed to pick up on this, or the other clues, and sentenced Cheung to jail.
Cheung appealed, and the High Court acknowledged that there had been a massive identification cock-up and quashed the conviction and sentence against Cheung.
Tip Off ROF
Police had arrested Philip Cheung Wen-po for allegedly stealing a wallet from a female victim's handbag in a bar. There was no identification parade before his trial.
At the initial hearing in the Eastern Court the prosecution asked the victim and her friend, who was also at the bar on the night of the incident, to identify the thief. The pair pointed to a uniformed officer who was alone in the dock, rather than Cheung. However, the court mistakenly thought that they had both picked out the defendant. The victim and her friend also described the thief as having short hair and balding, which matched the officer's hairstyle,but not Cheung's.
Cheung represented himself since he did not have a lawyer, and carried out the cross-examination. When he questioned the victim and her friend, they thought they were speaking to the defence lawyer and referred to the thief in the third person when responding. The court failed to pick up on this, or the other clues, and sentenced Cheung to jail.
 |
The court prepares for the afternoon sitting |
Cheung appealed, and the High Court acknowledged that there had been a massive identification cock-up and quashed the conviction and sentence against Cheung.