Deputy Magistrate Christine Leung acquitted a defendant (“D”) charged with indecent assault and ordered the prosecution to pay costs to the defence.

D was the father of the complainant X. The prosecution case said that in the morning of an unknown day, X, of her own volition, entered into the bedroom of D when D was still asleep. X then climbed across (檻過) D and slept at the position used to be slept by X’s mother (viz D’s wife) where X was not looking at D. Then all of a sudden, X said she felt D touching all over her body. After an unknown period of time, X then left the room. X reported the matter about 6 years after the alleged incident on a day to the social worker of her secondary school. Upon arrest, D gave a total denial statement to the police.

On acquitting D, the Court found X to be an incredible and unreliable witness. The court identified that the crux of the case was whether X falsely accused D of sexual assault. Nonetheless, X gave the confusingly incomprehensible answer of “I forgot” (唔記得) for literally the majority of the cross-examinations. These include, for example:-

(a) When asked whether X actually frequently accused her mother or even her younger brother of being “perverted” (變態) even when the slightest social touch of tabbing her shoulder, X said, “I forgot”.

(b) When asked whether X and D had an intense daughter-father relationship as D would always scold her for various different matters, X said “I forgot”.

(c) When asked whether X and D had vigorous quarrels on antagonistic political stance over various incidents occurred during the 2019 social events, X said “I forgot”, “I did not even know about it”.

(d) When asked about the particulars of the alleged assault, X said “I forgot” when asked about the sequence of the touching, which hand D used, from where D allegedly put his hand into X’s clothing, the duration of the touch etc.

(e) When asked about the day before reporting the matter to the social worker, X said “I forgot” what occurred that night.

The Court found that not only was X evasive to simple and straightforward questions, it seems that X was trying to avoid the defence from exploring the possibilities of a false accusation. On all, the court considered that the prosecution’s case was simply unreliable and the defendant was acquitted accordingly. The prosecution was also ordered to pay costs to the defence.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho in the said re-trial which lasted for 3 days. The defendant was initially convicted by another magistrate and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

In HCMA 477/2023, Simon So with Herman Ho represented him in obtaining bail pending appeal before Hon Anna Lai J. In July 2024, Simon So further appeared with Herman Ho and Jack Hui in his appeal against conviction before DHCJ E Lee, who allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered the prosecution to pay the costs of the appeal.