Magistrate acquitted a Defendant charged with “living on earnings of prostitution of others” after finding prosecution witnesses “completely unbelievable” and awarded costs.

Three undercover officers (“PW1 – PW3”) acted as decoys and visited a bar. The prosecution’s case was that the officers were received by a “female bar manager”, brought to a nearby bar, and asked whether they wanted “girls that can go out with them” (出街女). It was also the prosecution’s case that the “female bar manager” discussed the price, availability, and nationality of these girls with the officers. The operation took two days and turned overt on the second day after two of the officers each brought a girl with them to a nearby hotel room. It was the prosecution’s case that the “female bar manager” was the defendant.

In finding the defendant not guilty, Magistrate Kestrel Lam said he had “no slightest hesitation in finding the prosecution’s case unsatisfactory” (毫不猶疑地認為控方案情無法令人滿意). The Court found that the evidence of the PWs had many significant inconsistencies, for which they could not provide any good reasons. Amongst other things (i) PW1 provided an awkward post-record method (viz to record the matters on a plain paper and then copying the same to a brand new notebook issued to him at a later stage) which was raised for the first time in court and never mentioned by PW2 / PW3; (ii) All PWs (coincidentally) said the conversation took place in a room known as “A3” whilst there were in fact no such room in the bar; (iii) PW2’s and PW3’s notebook post-record and witness statements were completely identical (including punctuation, unique adjectives, and typographical mistakes) but both strenuously denied they had ever referred to one another’s record; (iv) Despite having consumed significant amount of whisky during the course of the operation, all witnesses avoided mentioning the alcohol concentration and the volume they consumed in their notebook and/or witness statement, trying to avoid the impression that their recollection might have been affected.

The Magistrate found the evidence of the witnesses “unimaginable” (匪夷所思), “making up a lie to cover up another lie” (編造不實謊言試圖掩飾), “completely a pack of lies” (完全大話連篇), and “tantamount to an insult to the intelligence of everyone in the court” (侮辱法庭上所有人的智慧). The Court found that the crux of the case depends on whether the Court can safely rely on the witness’s evidence. For the foregoing reasons, the Court said it had no slightest hesitation to acquit the Defendant.

Following the acquittal, the Court further made a costs order in favour of the Defence.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for the Defendant in the 4-day trial.