Police cheats and gives contradictory testimony in an assaulting police case by man in 60s on Sep 22
In September 2019, a construction worker in his 60s, who confronted the police force alone, was accused of pushing a sergeant and kicking a constable. He was charged with two offences of assaulting police officers. Yesterday, the case was determined that evidence established. Defendant chose not to self-defense and did not summon any witnesses. At the closing speech by the defence, a sergeant was criticized of cheating by reading notes hidden in his hand when giving evidence. When being questioned about the cheat sheet, he was not willing to tell the truth. This dishonest behaviour is unacceptable. “His evidence is worthless”. The defence urged the court not to consider the respondent’s evidence. Case was adjourned to 4th February 2020.
Defendant, 64 years old, was charged with two offences of assaulting police officers. He was accused of attacking station sergeant Yim Kit-yin and constable 58991 Chik Kin-fai at Tuen Mun Pui To Road on 22nd September.
The defence barrister Douglas Kwok King-hin gave a speech today, stating that one of the elements of assaulting the police is the victim refuses to have physical contact. However, the prosecution did not give evidence for that. The station sergent Yim, who initially alleged that she was pushed, made a false statement on court accusing the defendant of using umbrella to hit police shield. He then recanted. Barrister Kwok said his evidence was full of mistakes.
Regarding the sergeant, Chung Chi-ho, who cheated with hiding notes in his hand, the defendant stated that it is impermissible to peep at information in the court no matter how noble the reasons are. The defendant would not accept his excuse of poor memory. Barrister Kwok worried that the public will lose faith in the justice system if the court allows cheating.
The defendant criticized that even the sergeant was discovered of hiding notes in his hand, he still did not tell the truth upon request. It is not a truthful behaviour. “He can say whatever he likes. The evidence is worthless. It should not be counted.” The prosecution did not rebuke. The magistrate adjourned the case to 4th February for sentence. Defendant was granted bail again.