Deputy Magistrate Yvonne Chan found a male secondary school teacher no case to answer for indecent assault and bare case to answer for common assault.

The prosecution case was that the defendant invited a female student to his home during Christmas holiday. When the two were about to leave, it was said that the defendant leaned his head forward towards the complainant. The complainant, who thought the defendant was about to kiss her cheek, pushed the defendant away.

The defendant was charged with common assault and stood trial before a magistrate (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞”). Just after the complainant started giving evidence, the First Magistrate indicated to the prosecution that (1) he opined the correct charge should be indecent assault instead of common assault; and (2) the screen protecting the complainant should shield both the defendant and the public. Having made the observations, the First Magistrate said he considered himself to have entered into the arena and recused himself (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥”).

When the matter was set down for trial before Deputy Magistrate Yvonne Chan, the court refused the prosecution’s application to have the screen shielding the defendant as the prosecution raised no proper evidential grounds for so doing (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧”). The Deputy Magistrate found the defendant no case to answer for indecent assault as there was no evidence suggesting the defendant having any sexual or indecent intention and the act was not inherently indecent. After viewing the Instagram messages between the complainant and the defendant, the Deputy Magistrate finds that the complainant had clearly not been telling the whole truth when giving evidence. Further, the complainant conceded that she might have sent a “wrong signal” to the defendant that they may commence a romantic relationship. Having considered all the evidence, the Deputy Magistrate found the defendant only a bare case to answer for common assault and acquitted him.

The Deputy Magistrate agreed with the defence submission that the prosecution should not have made the Screen Application and amend the charge to indecent assault in the first place. Having considered all the circumstances, the Deputy Magistrate ordered the prosecution to pay (1) the costs of the vacated First Trial and (2) the costs in resisting the Screen Application.

Simon So represented the defendant in the First Trial and the subsequent trial as sole advocate.