Prosecution offered no further evidence after defence objected to the admissibility of crucial prosecution evidence.

The defendant was charged with Letting Premises to be Used as a Vice Establishment. It is the common ground that the Defendant was one of the joint tenants of a premises situated at Mut Wah Street (物華街), Kwun Tong (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐭”). After the Defendant formally pleaded not guilty, the prosecution applied to adduce and rely on three “warning notices” (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬”) issued to and received by the defendant which stated respectively that various females (on various dates) told various unknown undercover officer(s) that she/they was/were a prostitute and invited him/them to go to the Flat for sex. However, neither the female(s) nor the undercover officer(s) were intended to be called by the prosecution as witnesses. The Defence objected to the admissibility of the Notices on the basis that they were (i) irrelevant; (ii) hearsay; (iii) impermissible implied assertion; and/or (iv) prejudicial (and outweighs its probative value).

After taking time to consider the defendant’s submissions, the prosecution decided to offer no further evidence against the defendant and the defendant was acquitted.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho for the Defendant in the trial, which was initially listed for 2 days.