DCCC1059/2023 HKSAR v. MARIA MANINDER SINGH - LawHero
DCCC1059/2023
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge May Chung1/9/2025[2025] HKDC 1223
DCCC1059/2023
A A
B B
DCCC 1059/2023
C [2025] HKDC 1223 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1059 OF 2023
F F
G ---------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I MARIA MANINDER SINGH I
----------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge May Chung K
Date: 2 September 2025
L L
Present: Mr Edward Laskey, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Mohammed Jawadullah Shah instructed by Messrs Wat & M
Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the Defendant
N N
Offences: Passing or tendering a counterfeit currency note（行使或付
O O
給偽製流通紙幣）
P P
--------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR VERDICT
R -------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The Defendant (“D”) pleaded not guilty to one count of
C Passing or tendering a counterfeit currency note, contrary to section C
99(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.
D D
E 2. The particulars of the offence allege that D, on 27 February E
2023, on a taxi bearing registration mark WM 8988 (“the Taxi”), outside
F F
the entrance/exit of the car park, K11 Art Mall, No. 18 Hanoi Road, Tsim
G Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, passed or tendered as genuine one G
piece of $500 Hong Kong currency banknote, which was, and which he
H H
knew or believed to be, a counterfeit of a currency note.
I I
The Prosecution case
J J
K 3. On 27 February 2023, D boarded the Taxi of PW1 (a night K
shift taxi driver) with a female friend in Wanchai at around 0037 hours.
L L
They requested to go to Tsim Sha Tsui. At around 0051 hours when the
M Taxi reached the destination on Hanoi Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, D gave PW1 M
a HK$500 banknote (P1) and a HK$10 banknote to pay for the taxi fare
N N
which was HK$107.80 and requested $400 change from PW1.
O O
4. PW1 found P1 to be suspicious as its texture was of inferior
P P
quality and bore no security features normally found on genuine banknotes
Q so he reported the matter to the police. Q
R R
5. P1 was later confirmed to be a counterfeit banknote. D was
S arrested. During a house search, items D wore on the date of offence were S
seized.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
6. Under caution, in an oral admission and two records of
C interviews, D stated, inter alia: C
D D
(1) He had taken the Taxi from Wanchai to Tsim Sha Tsui
E on the date of offence with his female friend; E
F F
(2) He had paid for the taxi fare using P1;
G G
(3) He had previously purchased P1 from a male stranger
H H
for the price of HK$100 at Canal Road, Wanchai;
I I
(4) He no longer possessed the contact details of that male
J J
stranger;
K K
(5) He was aware that P1 was a counterfeit banknote;
L L
M (6) The female friend on the Taxi with him did not know M
P1 was a counterfeit banknote;
N N
O (7) He pleaded for a chance and expressed the wish to O
compensate PW1 for his financial loss.
P P
Q 7. P1 was of inferior quality and lacked the security measures Q
found on genuine banknotes.
R R
S 8. At the material time, when D passed as genuine (to PW1) the S
counterfeit banknote, i.e., P1, D knew or believed P1 to be a counterfeit.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Admitted Facts and other facts not disputed by the defence
C C
9. The following facts were admitted pursuant to section 65C of
D D
the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 (P3):
E E
(1) A HK$500 banknote (P1) was submitted to forensic
F examination and the police counterfeit currency expert F
confirmed the same to be a counterfeit banknote.
G G
H (2) D was arrested at his place of residence. During house H
search thereat, the apparel worn by D on the date of the
I I
offence, i.e., 27 February 2023, were found and seized,
J including (i) a black colour jacket (P4), (ii) an orange J
upper garment (P5); and (iii) a pair of blue jeans (P6).
K K
L 10. The defence confirmed that the following parts of the L
prosecution case were also not disputed:
M M
N (1) On the date of the offence, PW1 was working night N
shift. He picked up a male passenger later identified to
O O
be D and his female friend in Wanchai at around 0037
P hours that day. They requested to go to Tsim Sha Tsui, P
Kowloon.
Q Q
R R
(2) PW1 provided P1 to the police.
S S
(3) P1 is a counterfeit banknote as defined by section 97 of
T T
the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 11. A photograph album (P7) and the dashcam footage of the Taxi C
for the journey taken by D and his female companion (P8) were agreed to
D D
be produced by the parties. For P8, dialogue between PW1 and D during
E the subject taxi journey was transcribed and translated – the agreed E
transcript and translation is produced as P19.
F F
G Issues G
H H
12. The issues in the case are: (1) whether the prosecution can
I prove D was the one who passed P1 to PW1 and, if so, (2) whether the I
prosecution can prove D knew or believed P1 to be a counterfeit banknote.
J J
K Voluntariness of the Oral Admission and Records of Interviews K
L L
13. The defence disputed the voluntariness of the oral admission
M made by D and the two records of interviews and the case proceeded by M
way of alternative procedure. It is the defence stance 1 that the oral
N N
admission was not made by D, and alternatively, that it was made
O involuntarily. As to the records of interviews, it is the defence case that O
when these interviews were conducted, D was only provided with
P P
Punti/English interpreters but D was not fluent in either Punti or English
Q (and no Punjabi interpreter was provided); the Punti/English interpreters in Q
fact made no interpretation to English. D also made allegations against (1)
R R
PC 11766 (PW4, being the arresting officer who gave evidence as to the
S oral admission (recorded in his notebook, PP10) and the taking of the first S
record of interview (“1st ROI”, PP13)) and (2) DPC 20123 (PW5, being the
T T
1
See the Defence Grounds of Objection dated 9 June 2025.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
officer who took the second record of interview (“2nd ROI”, PP17)),
C alleging they had used threats and inducement etc to procure D’s C
declarations and signatures on the two ROIs. There was also an allegation
D D
that the arresting team had made inducements on the car ride back to the
E police station. D agreed he had signed and written the declarations on the E
ROIs but denied the contents had been provided by him or that he had read
F F
/ had known about the contents (which, according to the defence, had all
G been made up and written by the police officers). G
H H
14. In gist, PW4’s evidence is that on 9 March 2023 at around
I 6pm, he and other officers of the arresting team (DPC 12812 (PW8), PC I
15171 (PW9), DPC 5844 (PW10) and DSGT 2965 (PW11)) went to a
J J
subdivided unit in a guesthouse in Chungking Mansions to locate D. D was
K arrested and cautioned by PW4 in Punti, and D made the following oral K
admission in Punti under caution: “Ah Sir, I was too poor and did not have
L L
much money. Just now I was in a hurry when taking a taxi. I used a $500
M counterfeit banknote. I know this is wrong. I would like to return money to M
taxi driver. The whole thing was done by me alone. Please give me a
N N
chance.” PW4 then immediately recorded the admission down (in Chinese,
O as D had made the admission in Punti) in his notebook (PP10, p64 at “1815” O
hours) to reinforce his own memory. D was then taken back to the police
P P
station where a post-record was taken in the form of a record of interview
Q (i.e., the 1st ROI, PP13) by PW4 with the assistance of an Punti/English Q
interpreter, Madam Lui (PW5) 2 . (PW4 explained that he had asked D
R R
which language he elected to use and D had chosen English, and that was
S why an interpreter in that language was arranged. PW4 was also able to S
T 2 T
In the process, two Pol 153 Notices to Persons in Police Custody (PP11 and PP12) were served on D,
the latter one also interpreted to D by PW5, with D confirming that he understood the contents and had
no request.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
communicate with D with no issue in Punti.) In the whole process, there
C were no threats or inducements made. C
D D
15. As to the 2nd ROI, according to PW6, he had learned from the
E arresting team that D knew Punti and could write in English (but he could E
not do so in his mother-tongue) and PW6 himself was able to carry on a
F F
normal conversation with D in Punti with no issue; PW6 also confirmed
G D’s election to use English for the 2 nd ROI. PW6 thus arranged for a G
Punti/English interpreter (i.e., PW7) to serve D with the Pol 153 (PP16)
H H
and to take the 2nd ROI (PP17) with him. During the process of taking the
I 2nd ROI, D gave the answers contained therein. There was no inducement I
or threats made.
J J
K 16. After I ruled a case to answer on the special issue, D chose not K
to give evidence himself, but called his brother (DW1) to testify. In gist,
L L
DW1’s evidence was that D had come to Hong Kong when he was around
M 10 years old; at the time, D had taken an entrance examination to get into M
Primary 4 at Lei Cheng Uk Primary School (D’s age was such that he
N N
should have been placed in Primary 5, but he was put in Primary 4 instead
O due to his lower English language level); D had only attended school in O
Hong Kong for 3-4 years before dropping out; as an adult, D’s fluency
P P
level in Punti was 60% (as compared to a local’s) and his fluency level in
Q English was 40%. D can understand and speak Punjabi (his mother-tongue) Q
completely fluently, but cannot read or write in that language; D does not
R R
know Hindi at all.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
17. Regarding the special issue, I bear in mind the prosecution
C bears the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D made the C
admissions and that they were made voluntarily. The defence called D’s
D D
brother (DW1) to testify, and I must consider his evidence on the special
E issue. D has no obligation to give evidence, and I shall not draw any E
adverse inference against him for electing not to testify on the special issue;
F F
nonetheless, that means there is nothing from the defence to challenge,
G dispute, weaken or contradict the prosecution evidence / case on what G
occurred during the arrest (when the oral admission was allegedly made
H H
under caution) and the taking of the two ROIs – DW1 was not present at
I the arrest or the interviews, and only gave evidence as to the general I
language ability of D. In any event, I bear in mind that the prosecution must
J J
prove beyond reasonable doubt that D made the admissions and that they
K were voluntarily made. K
L L
18. The defence criticisms of the prosecution witnesses are in
M essence that PW4 lied about D making the oral admission at the scene of M
the arrest, and PW4-PW7 lied about D giving the answers recorded in the
N N
two ROIs (and instead, PW4 and PW6 had made up the Chinese contents
O of PP13 and PP16 (including the alleged answers given by D recorded O
therein), and PW5 and PW7 had not interpreted anything for D. The
P P
defence further says that prosecution witnesses (including PW4, 6, 8-11)
Q had made threats and inducements, and also that D should have been Q
provided with an interpreter of his mother-tongue (i.e., Punjabi).
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
19. I do not accept the defence submissions. I find all the
C prosecution witnesses on the special issue to be credible and reliable C
witnesses, and I accept their evidence:
D D
E (1) PW8-11’s evidence was very short, and in essence, the E
defence merely put its case to them without asking
F F
further questions during cross-examination. All of
G these prosecution witnesses denied that any improper G
exchange / inducement had taken place on the car ride
H H
back to the police station. I accept their evidence.
I I
(2) PW2 was the station sergeant at the time when D was
J J
taken back to Tsim Sha Tsui Police station after his
K arrest, and PW3 was the officer who had briefed PW4 K
on the case the morning before the arrest. Their
L L
evidence centered around having had conversations
M with D fluently in Punti. Their evidence was short and M
they did not waver under cross-examination. I also
N N
accept their evidence.
O O
(3) PW4’s evidence was clear and straightforward. His
P P
evidence was logical and reasonable. When defence
Q counsel put to him that it would be more proper and Q
fairer to a defendant to arrange for an interpreter of
R R
his/her mother-tongue when taking a record of
S interview, PW4 answered that he would make a choice S
based on the person’s language abilities and his/her
T T
needs and requests; in this case, D had told him that he
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
spoke Punti and could read in English (and PW4
C observed that D could communicate with PW4 with no C
issue in Punti); at the police station, there were posters
D D
with more than 30 languages (including Punjabi and
E Urdu) posted on the wall, and when PW4 had asked D E
which language of those was appropriate, D had said
F F
“English”; that is why PW4 had chosen to engage a
G Punti/English interpreter for the 1st ROI. I am of the G
view that that is a reasonable and proper way to deal
H H
with the matter. The main criticism by the defence
I against PW4 was that PW4 had not recorded down that I
he had had any exchange with D about election of
J J
language, and thus the defence asserts PW4 must have
K lied about this (i.e., that PW4 had never asked D which K
language he wanted to use). PW4 explained that
L L
making such a record is not part of the usual procedure,
M and thus he did not do so. PW4’s evidence did not M
waver under cross-examination; his answers to
N N
questions posed by the defence were logical and
O reasonable. PW5’s evidence was also clear and O
straightforward, and her evidence as to the taking of the
P P
1 ROI was consistent with PW4’s evidence in all
st
Q material and pertinent aspects (and any minor Q
discrepancy or one of them having forgotten / being
R R
unable to recollect certain details of what had happened
S did not affect the credibility and reliability of their S
evidence on material issues). I am of the view that both
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
PW4 and PW5 were honest and reliable witnesses, and
C I accept their evidence. C
D D
(4) PW6’s evidence was also clear, concise and to-the-
E point. He did not waver under cross-examination. E
PW7’s evidence regarding how the 2 nd ROI was
F F
conducted and recorded was consistent in material
G aspects with PW6’s evidence. I find them both to be G
credible and reliable.
H H
I 20. I find PW2-11 to be credible and reliable witnesses, and I
accept their evidence as to the special issue, giving their evidence full
J J
weight.
K K
21. As to DW1’s evidence on the special issue, I make the
L L
following observations:
M M
(1) I bear in mind that he is of clear record and give myself
N N
the relevant direction in respect of credibility.
O O
(2) DW1 was not present when the admissions were made
P P
/ when the ROIs were conducted. As such, his evidence
Q pertained only to D’s language abilities and not as to Q
what had occurred during the arrest (when the oral
R R
admission was allegedly made) and the two interviews.
S S
(3) Although DW1 is D’s brother, his evidence showed
T T
that he did not have a good understanding or knowledge
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
of D’s English and Punti fluency / level (especially in
C 2023 when the offence occurred). DW1 had only C
worked with D in around 2014, for at most several
D D
years (when D drove English-speaking clients to/from
E the airport/hotel for DW1’s company). Importantly, E
according to DW1, D was very quiet in general and
F F
DW1 rarely heard him speak; when they did speak, 99%
G of their conversation would be in Punjabi – and the rest G
of their exchanges would be in Punti (with DW1 doing
H H
most of the talking). Given that both of them were very
I fluent in spoken Punjabi, and their exchanges / I
conversations (especially in languages other than
J J
Punjabi) were very rare, it is clear that DW1 would not
K have had many occasions to assess D’s English or Punti K
abilities. I am of the view that DW1’s assessment of
L L
D’s English and Punti abilities cannot be given much
M weight. M
N N
(4) It should be noted that, nonetheless, DW1 admitted that
O D could handle basic communication in English (at O
“40%” according to his assessment), and he believed
P P
that D’s Punti fluency was even higher (at “60%”
Q according to his assessment). Q
R R
(5) All in all, I find DW1 to be an honest witness, but I am
S of the view that his evidence is not very reliable or S
helpful to the court.
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
22. As to the defence submissions on the special issue, I note the
C following: C
D D
(1) The defence insisted that D should have been provided
E with an interpreter of his mother-tongue when the ROIs E
were taken. However, it is clear that one can be fluent
F F
in more than one language, and not everyone is the
G most fluent in his/her so-called mother-tongue or first G
language. Obviously, one can be born in one country,
H H
picking up only the basics of that language at a very
I early age (this being the person’s mother-tongue), and I
then move to another country as a young child, and
J J
subsequently becoming much more fluent in that
K second language than the mother-tongue. On the same K
note, the defence seems to be saying that all South
L L
Asian persons should be provided with an interpreter
M according to his/her nationality or country of descent – M
however, it goes without saying that many South Asian
N N
persons are born and raised in Hong Kong, attending
O school in Hong Kong their whole lives and are O
extremely fluent in English and Chinese. Would it not
P P
be presumptuous for one to assume that all persons in
Q Hong Kong of a certain skin tone (reference to which Q
defence counsel made multiple times) would not be
R R
fluent in Punti or English, or would be more fluent (or
S only fluent) in a language related to their descent? S
Defence counsel implying that someone with an accent
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
indicates lack of fluency in that language is also
C presumptuous and inaccurate. C
D D
(2) In this case, DW1’s evidence indicates that D can speak
E and understand spoken Punjabi fluently. However, he E
cannot read or write in that language. All the evidence
F F
(including DW1’s evidence) support D being
G sufficiently fluent in Punti as well as in English 3 . G
Moreover, the agreed footage of the dashcam of the
H H
Taxi (i.e. P8) supports the prosecution witnesses’
I evidence that D can understand and speak Punti I
fluently – he was able to carry on short conversations /
J J
exchanges with PW1. The fact that D has been in Hong
K Kong for over 25 years (since around 10 years of age) K
and educated for at least 3-4 years in the local system
L L
also supports that he should know at least basic Punti
M and English. M
N N
(3) D wrote out and made the declarations in both ROIs
O that he had read the contents of the statements, that they O
were true and he had made them of his own free will,
P P
and that the records were accurate and the answers were
Q provided by him (see PP13 and PP17), and signed the Q
R R
S S
3
Indeed, as already mentioned, even based on DW1’s evidence D’s Punti is at 60% fluency (as compared
to someone who is completely fluent, i.e., a local), and his English is at 40% fluency. PW4 and PW6’s
evidence was that D could understand and speak Punti based on their interaction with him; PW5 and
T T
PW7’s evidence was that D could understand and read English based on their interaction with him
(including that D had conversed with PW7 about Indian culture and Indian names and whether certain
names were surnames or religious names).
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
same. The evidence shows that this reflected the truth
C of the matter. C
D D
(4) The defence criticises the interpreters for not having
E explained the contents of the declarations to D (in E
addition to reading out and/or asking D to read the
F F
English version of the declarations). I find that criticism
G to be unfair as the said declarations are worded in very G
simple, basic and clear terms – I do not see (1) why the
H H
interpreters should be expected to explain the
I declarations (given they are only acting in the role of I
providing translation from one language to another)
J J
and (2) how they could even do so in simpler language
K than is stated on the face of the declarations / by the K
wording of the declarations themselves.
L L
M (5) Defence counsel handed up the case of HKSAR v Toe M
Eli CACC 120/2020 not to rely on it but to distinguish
N N
it from the present case, in gist, arguing that the
O applicant there had elected English and the court could O
assess his English ability from the video recorded
P P
interview, whereas in the present case, there was no
Q election by D as to language and there is no evidence to Q
help the court assess D’s Punti or English abilities.
R R
Nonetheless, defence counsel in his submissions agreed
S that if D really had been given the choice and if he had S
made an election to use English, that should be
T T
sufficient – defence counsel confirmed that he was not
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
submitting that a defendant should always be provided
C with an interpreter of his mother-tongue (or first C
language). On the issue of language election, I have
D D
already made a finding that the officers did ask D what
E language he chose to use for the ROIs and he elected to E
use English. They thus subsequently (and appropriately)
F F
provided Punti/English interpreters to D at the
G interviews. G
H H
(6) D’s conduct at the interviews (including providing
I answers in English, writing out the declarations, I
signing the same etc) clearly showed that he was
J J
sufficiently fluent / proficient in the language. It is clear
K that D’s English abilities enabled him to understand the K
English contents of the ROIs including the declarations
L L
written out by him and the English answers recorded in
M the statements (which were in simple and M
straightforward language).
N N
O (7) As to the oral admission, defence counsel submitted O
that it was inappropriate for PW4 to have recorded it in
P P
his notebook without asking D to confirm and sign the
Q same. On this point, I note that the evidence shows D Q
spontaneously and voluntarily gave the admission (in
R R
Punti) upon being cautioned at the scene of arrest. I do
S not see how it would be improper for PW4 to record S
that down in his notebook (for the purpose of
T T
reinforcing his own memory, as he stated); PW4 did not
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
ask D to sign the record because D does not know how
C to read Chinese – I am of the view that PW4 dealt with C
the matter properly and reasonably.
D D
E (8) As to the defence allegations 4 of other improper E
conduct by prosecution witnesses (i.e., that they had all
F F
lied, that they had concocted the admissions, and that
G they had used threats and inducements to procure the G
admissions, and had in general handled the case
H H
improperly), I do not accept this to be so or that this
I might have been the case. The defence Grounds of I
Objections is not supported by evidence, and is illogical
J J
and contradictory in many respects. One example is the
K following: it is contended that PW6 made up everything K
and wrote everything in the 2 nd ROI without D having
L L
provided any answers to the questions posed in that
M interview (see para 5.4 of the Grounds of Objection); M
but if that were the case, why would PW6 need to tell
N N
D the story that PW6 had concocted before writing out
O the contents of the ROI (see para 5.2 of the Grounds of O
Objections), in essence teaching D what he should say
P P
/ what the story should be (when D did not need to
Q participate at all or give answers at all in the interview)? Q
R R
4
I also do not agree with defence counsel’s submission that “someone not remembering something
S provides support for the existence or possibility of the existence of something” – i.e., the argument that S
when a prosecution witness stated “no recollection” or “no impression” or “I do not remember” to an
answer in cross-examination, that that is support for the defence case. In particular, I do not agree with
the contention that PW5 / PW7 saying they had no recollection or no impression that something improper
T T
was said to D at the interviews (or that they had no memory of such) provides support for the defence
case that something improper might have been said.
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
It must be borne in mind that D elected not to give
C evidence on the special issue – as stated before, this is C
his right (and no adverse inference would be drawn
D D
because of his election), but this also means there is no
E evidence to support what is alleged in the Grounds of E
Objection or to contradict the evidence of PW2-11.
F F
G 23. I find on the evidence that D can understand and speak Punti G
fluently, and that he can read and write English to the proficiency necessary
H H
for the two ROIs to be conducted and taken. I find on the evidence that D
I voluntarily and spontaneously made the oral admission (accurately I
recorded in PW4’s notebook) in Punti, and that he was asked which
J J
language to use and had elected to use English for the two ROIs. I find on
K the evidence that D’s Punti and English fluency / proficiency levels were K
such as to enable him to sufficiently understand and communicate in those
L L
languages for the purpose of giving the oral admission in Punti and to
M undergo the two interviews with Punti/English interpreters (giving the M
answers and declarations he did in English).
N N
O 24. I find that (1) D made the oral statement under caution in Punti; O
that (2) D provided the answers to the questions in the two ROIs in English;
P P
and (3) he did all this voluntarily (with no threats / inducements made by
Q any prosecution witness). Q
R R
25. On the special issue, I am certain that (1) in respect of the oral
S admission, D clearly understood the contents of the caution, made the oral S
admission (which was subsequently recorded in PP10) voluntarily; and (2)
T T
st nd
in respect of the 1 ROI (PP13) and the 2 ROI (PP17), D clearly
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
understood the contents of the cautions, gave the answers and declarations
C therein voluntarily. I find PP10, PP13 and PP17 to be accurate records. I C
find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the
D D
voluntariness of the said admissions, and I furthermore do not see any
E reason for the court to exercise its discretion to exclude / rule out the same. E
I ruled that the oral admission as well as PP9-14 and PP16-18 were
F F
admissible as evidence; the aforesaid provisional exhibits were thus
G formally marked P9 to P14 and P16 to P18. G
H H
Defence case
I I
26. At the close of the prosecution case (on the general issue), the
J J
defence had no midway submissions. After I ruled a case to answer, D
K elected not to give evidence and did not call other witnesses. K
L L
27. The defence in essence submitted that (1) no weight should be
M given to the alleged admissions of D and (2) PW1 should not be believed. M
In terms of (1), the defence repeats what was submitted on the special issue
N N
and further says that the version purportedly given by D in the admissions
O was inherently improbable 5. O
P P
Analysis of the evidence
Q Q
28. The prosecution has the burden to prove the requisite elements
R R
of the offence beyond reasonable doubt; D has no burden of proof. D has
S no obligation to testify or call any evidence, and I shall not draw any S
adverse inference against him for electing not to do so on the general issue;
T T
5
Paras 17(iii) and 19 of the Closing Skeleton Submissions for D dated 7 July 2025.
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
nonetheless, it means there is no evidence from the defence to undermine,
C contradict or explain the evidence put forward by the prosecution. C
Furthermore, if I am to draw an inference, the inference must be drawn
D D
from facts proved and that the inference must be the only irresistible
E inference to be drawn from the proved facts. In any event, the prosecution E
bears the burden to prove D committed the offence beyond reasonable
F F
doubt.
G G
29. The contents of the oral admission (accurately recorded in P10)
H H
and the two ROIs (PP13 and PP17) are completely inculpatory (and they
I are not mixed statements). In any event, I have considered the whole of the I
contents of the statements in order to determine where the truth lies. I have
J J
already dealt with the defence submissions regarding the issue with
K translation etc above – I do not accept the arguments of the defence. I also K
do not accept the defence argument that the version given in the statements
L L
is inherently improbable or defies logic. D gave a straightforward and
M simple account that he had purchased the HK$500 counterfeit note from a M
person in Wanchai for HK$100, and later had used it to pay PW1 for the
N N
taxi ride. The defence submission that D might have made the admissions
O to protect his girlfriend is mere conjecture with no evidence at all to support O
this possibility. I am sure that the admissions are true, and I give them full
P P
weight.
Q Q
30. The prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1, the driver of
R R
the Taxi. I have considered the criticisms of the defence against PW1. The
S main contention of the defence is that PW1’s evidence in his 1st statement S
(dated 27 February 2023) and 2nd statement (dated 5 June 2025) contain
T T
discrepancies. However, I am of the view that there is nothing material that
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
turns on these alleged discrepancies and moreover that they are not actually
C inconsistent (but merely that more details were provided in the 2 nd C
statement, as explained by PW1). I accept PW1’s explanation for these so-
D D
called discrepancies. For example, the 1st statement did not mention that
E the original destination of the passengers (i.e., D and his companion E
according to the prosecution case) was Chungking Mansion and not K11;
F F
it also did not mention the route the Taxi took from near Chungking
G Mansion to K11. However, it is not in dispute that the final destination was G
K11, and that D and his companion got off at that location. Importantly,
H H
the footage P8 (and the related transcript P19) supports PW1’s evidence
I that D indeed had asked to be driven to Chungking Mansion originally and I
had subsequently changed his mind and told D to drop him off on Mody
J J
Road (at K11). I am of the view the undisputed footage supports PW1’s
K evidence in material aspects. As to the defence argument that PW1 did not K
deny during cross-examination that the counterfeit note could have come
L L
from another passenger, this evidence was already clarified in re-
M examination (PW1 clarifying that what he meant was: he did not know how M
D had obtained the note, but he was sure it was D who had handed him the
N N
note to pay for his taxi ride to K11). The defence also criticises PW1 for
O not having provided the portion of the dashcam footage showing him O
examining the counterfeit note in his taxi after dropping D off at K11;
P P
however, it is clear that the camera points outside the car and not inside the
Q cabin and there would be no conversation during that part of the footage Q
which could assist. I have considered all the arguments put forth by the
R R
defence against PW1 in the closing submissions (both written and oral) and
S I do not accept the defence contentions. All in all, PW1’s evidence was S
clear and straightforward and he did not waver under cross-examination. I
T T
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
find him to be a credible and reliable witness and give his evidence full
C weight. C
D D
31. There is very strong evidence against D in this case. On the
E evidence which has been accepted by the court, I am sure that on the date E
of the offence, D rode in PW1’s Taxi and passed P1 to him for payment,
F F
knowing that P1 was a counterfeit banknote.
G G
32. I find the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
H H
doubt, and D is found guilty of the offence as charged.
I I
J J
K K
( May Chung )
L L
Deputy District Judge
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 1059/2023
C [2025] HKDC 1223 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1059 OF 2023
F F
G ---------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I MARIA MANINDER SINGH I
----------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge May Chung K
Date: 2 September 2025
L L
Present: Mr Edward Laskey, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Mohammed Jawadullah Shah instructed by Messrs Wat & M
Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the Defendant
N N
Offences: Passing or tendering a counterfeit currency note（行使或付
O O
給偽製流通紙幣）
P P
--------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR VERDICT
R -------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The Defendant (“D”) pleaded not guilty to one count of
C Passing or tendering a counterfeit currency note, contrary to section C
99(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.
D D
E 2. The particulars of the offence allege that D, on 27 February E
2023, on a taxi bearing registration mark WM 8988 (“the Taxi”), outside
F F
the entrance/exit of the car park, K11 Art Mall, No. 18 Hanoi Road, Tsim
G Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, passed or tendered as genuine one G
piece of $500 Hong Kong currency banknote, which was, and which he
H H
knew or believed to be, a counterfeit of a currency note.
I I
The Prosecution case
J J
K 3. On 27 February 2023, D boarded the Taxi of PW1 (a night K
shift taxi driver) with a female friend in Wanchai at around 0037 hours.
L L
They requested to go to Tsim Sha Tsui. At around 0051 hours when the
M Taxi reached the destination on Hanoi Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, D gave PW1 M
a HK$500 banknote (P1) and a HK$10 banknote to pay for the taxi fare
N N
which was HK$107.80 and requested $400 change from PW1.
O O
4. PW1 found P1 to be suspicious as its texture was of inferior
P P
quality and bore no security features normally found on genuine banknotes
Q so he reported the matter to the police. Q
R R
5. P1 was later confirmed to be a counterfeit banknote. D was
S arrested. During a house search, items D wore on the date of offence were S
seized.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
6. Under caution, in an oral admission and two records of
C interviews, D stated, inter alia: C
D D
(1) He had taken the Taxi from Wanchai to Tsim Sha Tsui
E on the date of offence with his female friend; E
F F
(2) He had paid for the taxi fare using P1;
G G
(3) He had previously purchased P1 from a male stranger
H H
for the price of HK$100 at Canal Road, Wanchai;
I I
(4) He no longer possessed the contact details of that male
J J
stranger;
K K
(5) He was aware that P1 was a counterfeit banknote;
L L
M (6) The female friend on the Taxi with him did not know M
P1 was a counterfeit banknote;
N N
O (7) He pleaded for a chance and expressed the wish to O
compensate PW1 for his financial loss.
P P
Q 7. P1 was of inferior quality and lacked the security measures Q
found on genuine banknotes.
R R
S 8. At the material time, when D passed as genuine (to PW1) the S
counterfeit banknote, i.e., P1, D knew or believed P1 to be a counterfeit.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Admitted Facts and other facts not disputed by the defence
C C
9. The following facts were admitted pursuant to section 65C of
D D
the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 (P3):
E E
(1) A HK$500 banknote (P1) was submitted to forensic
F examination and the police counterfeit currency expert F
confirmed the same to be a counterfeit banknote.
G G
H (2) D was arrested at his place of residence. During house H
search thereat, the apparel worn by D on the date of the
I I
offence, i.e., 27 February 2023, were found and seized,
J including (i) a black colour jacket (P4), (ii) an orange J
upper garment (P5); and (iii) a pair of blue jeans (P6).
K K
L 10. The defence confirmed that the following parts of the L
prosecution case were also not disputed:
M M
N (1) On the date of the offence, PW1 was working night N
shift. He picked up a male passenger later identified to
O O
be D and his female friend in Wanchai at around 0037
P hours that day. They requested to go to Tsim Sha Tsui, P
Kowloon.
Q Q
R R
(2) PW1 provided P1 to the police.
S S
(3) P1 is a counterfeit banknote as defined by section 97 of
T T
the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 11. A photograph album (P7) and the dashcam footage of the Taxi C
for the journey taken by D and his female companion (P8) were agreed to
D D
be produced by the parties. For P8, dialogue between PW1 and D during
E the subject taxi journey was transcribed and translated – the agreed E
transcript and translation is produced as P19.
F F
G Issues G
H H
12. The issues in the case are: (1) whether the prosecution can
I prove D was the one who passed P1 to PW1 and, if so, (2) whether the I
prosecution can prove D knew or believed P1 to be a counterfeit banknote.
J J
K Voluntariness of the Oral Admission and Records of Interviews K
L L
13. The defence disputed the voluntariness of the oral admission
M made by D and the two records of interviews and the case proceeded by M
way of alternative procedure. It is the defence stance 1 that the oral
N N
admission was not made by D, and alternatively, that it was made
O involuntarily. As to the records of interviews, it is the defence case that O
when these interviews were conducted, D was only provided with
P P
Punti/English interpreters but D was not fluent in either Punti or English
Q (and no Punjabi interpreter was provided); the Punti/English interpreters in Q
fact made no interpretation to English. D also made allegations against (1)
R R
PC 11766 (PW4, being the arresting officer who gave evidence as to the
S oral admission (recorded in his notebook, PP10) and the taking of the first S
record of interview (“1st ROI”, PP13)) and (2) DPC 20123 (PW5, being the
T T
1
See the Defence Grounds of Objection dated 9 June 2025.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
officer who took the second record of interview (“2nd ROI”, PP17)),
C alleging they had used threats and inducement etc to procure D’s C
declarations and signatures on the two ROIs. There was also an allegation
D D
that the arresting team had made inducements on the car ride back to the
E police station. D agreed he had signed and written the declarations on the E
ROIs but denied the contents had been provided by him or that he had read
F F
/ had known about the contents (which, according to the defence, had all
G been made up and written by the police officers). G
H H
14. In gist, PW4’s evidence is that on 9 March 2023 at around
I 6pm, he and other officers of the arresting team (DPC 12812 (PW8), PC I
15171 (PW9), DPC 5844 (PW10) and DSGT 2965 (PW11)) went to a
J J
subdivided unit in a guesthouse in Chungking Mansions to locate D. D was
K arrested and cautioned by PW4 in Punti, and D made the following oral K
admission in Punti under caution: “Ah Sir, I was too poor and did not have
L L
much money. Just now I was in a hurry when taking a taxi. I used a $500
M counterfeit banknote. I know this is wrong. I would like to return money to M
taxi driver. The whole thing was done by me alone. Please give me a
N N
chance.” PW4 then immediately recorded the admission down (in Chinese,
O as D had made the admission in Punti) in his notebook (PP10, p64 at “1815” O
hours) to reinforce his own memory. D was then taken back to the police
P P
station where a post-record was taken in the form of a record of interview
Q (i.e., the 1st ROI, PP13) by PW4 with the assistance of an Punti/English Q
interpreter, Madam Lui (PW5) 2 . (PW4 explained that he had asked D
R R
which language he elected to use and D had chosen English, and that was
S why an interpreter in that language was arranged. PW4 was also able to S
T 2 T
In the process, two Pol 153 Notices to Persons in Police Custody (PP11 and PP12) were served on D,
the latter one also interpreted to D by PW5, with D confirming that he understood the contents and had
no request.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
communicate with D with no issue in Punti.) In the whole process, there
C were no threats or inducements made. C
D D
15. As to the 2nd ROI, according to PW6, he had learned from the
E arresting team that D knew Punti and could write in English (but he could E
not do so in his mother-tongue) and PW6 himself was able to carry on a
F F
normal conversation with D in Punti with no issue; PW6 also confirmed
G D’s election to use English for the 2 nd ROI. PW6 thus arranged for a G
Punti/English interpreter (i.e., PW7) to serve D with the Pol 153 (PP16)
H H
and to take the 2nd ROI (PP17) with him. During the process of taking the
I 2nd ROI, D gave the answers contained therein. There was no inducement I
or threats made.
J J
K 16. After I ruled a case to answer on the special issue, D chose not K
to give evidence himself, but called his brother (DW1) to testify. In gist,
L L
DW1’s evidence was that D had come to Hong Kong when he was around
M 10 years old; at the time, D had taken an entrance examination to get into M
Primary 4 at Lei Cheng Uk Primary School (D’s age was such that he
N N
should have been placed in Primary 5, but he was put in Primary 4 instead
O due to his lower English language level); D had only attended school in O
Hong Kong for 3-4 years before dropping out; as an adult, D’s fluency
P P
level in Punti was 60% (as compared to a local’s) and his fluency level in
Q English was 40%. D can understand and speak Punjabi (his mother-tongue) Q
completely fluently, but cannot read or write in that language; D does not
R R
know Hindi at all.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
17. Regarding the special issue, I bear in mind the prosecution
C bears the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D made the C
admissions and that they were made voluntarily. The defence called D’s
D D
brother (DW1) to testify, and I must consider his evidence on the special
E issue. D has no obligation to give evidence, and I shall not draw any E
adverse inference against him for electing not to testify on the special issue;
F F
nonetheless, that means there is nothing from the defence to challenge,
G dispute, weaken or contradict the prosecution evidence / case on what G
occurred during the arrest (when the oral admission was allegedly made
H H
under caution) and the taking of the two ROIs – DW1 was not present at
I the arrest or the interviews, and only gave evidence as to the general I
language ability of D. In any event, I bear in mind that the prosecution must
J J
prove beyond reasonable doubt that D made the admissions and that they
K were voluntarily made. K
L L
18. The defence criticisms of the prosecution witnesses are in
M essence that PW4 lied about D making the oral admission at the scene of M
the arrest, and PW4-PW7 lied about D giving the answers recorded in the
N N
two ROIs (and instead, PW4 and PW6 had made up the Chinese contents
O of PP13 and PP16 (including the alleged answers given by D recorded O
therein), and PW5 and PW7 had not interpreted anything for D. The
P P
defence further says that prosecution witnesses (including PW4, 6, 8-11)
Q had made threats and inducements, and also that D should have been Q
provided with an interpreter of his mother-tongue (i.e., Punjabi).
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
19. I do not accept the defence submissions. I find all the
C prosecution witnesses on the special issue to be credible and reliable C
witnesses, and I accept their evidence:
D D
E (1) PW8-11’s evidence was very short, and in essence, the E
defence merely put its case to them without asking
F F
further questions during cross-examination. All of
G these prosecution witnesses denied that any improper G
exchange / inducement had taken place on the car ride
H H
back to the police station. I accept their evidence.
I I
(2) PW2 was the station sergeant at the time when D was
J J
taken back to Tsim Sha Tsui Police station after his
K arrest, and PW3 was the officer who had briefed PW4 K
on the case the morning before the arrest. Their
L L
evidence centered around having had conversations
M with D fluently in Punti. Their evidence was short and M
they did not waver under cross-examination. I also
N N
accept their evidence.
O O
(3) PW4’s evidence was clear and straightforward. His
P P
evidence was logical and reasonable. When defence
Q counsel put to him that it would be more proper and Q
fairer to a defendant to arrange for an interpreter of
R R
his/her mother-tongue when taking a record of
S interview, PW4 answered that he would make a choice S
based on the person’s language abilities and his/her
T T
needs and requests; in this case, D had told him that he
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
spoke Punti and could read in English (and PW4
C observed that D could communicate with PW4 with no C
issue in Punti); at the police station, there were posters
D D
with more than 30 languages (including Punjabi and
E Urdu) posted on the wall, and when PW4 had asked D E
which language of those was appropriate, D had said
F F
“English”; that is why PW4 had chosen to engage a
G Punti/English interpreter for the 1st ROI. I am of the G
view that that is a reasonable and proper way to deal
H H
with the matter. The main criticism by the defence
I against PW4 was that PW4 had not recorded down that I
he had had any exchange with D about election of
J J
language, and thus the defence asserts PW4 must have
K lied about this (i.e., that PW4 had never asked D which K
language he wanted to use). PW4 explained that
L L
making such a record is not part of the usual procedure,
M and thus he did not do so. PW4’s evidence did not M
waver under cross-examination; his answers to
N N
questions posed by the defence were logical and
O reasonable. PW5’s evidence was also clear and O
straightforward, and her evidence as to the taking of the
P P
1 ROI was consistent with PW4’s evidence in all
st
Q material and pertinent aspects (and any minor Q
discrepancy or one of them having forgotten / being
R R
unable to recollect certain details of what had happened
S did not affect the credibility and reliability of their S
evidence on material issues). I am of the view that both
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
PW4 and PW5 were honest and reliable witnesses, and
C I accept their evidence. C
D D
(4) PW6’s evidence was also clear, concise and to-the-
E point. He did not waver under cross-examination. E
PW7’s evidence regarding how the 2 nd ROI was
F F
conducted and recorded was consistent in material
G aspects with PW6’s evidence. I find them both to be G
credible and reliable.
H H
I 20. I find PW2-11 to be credible and reliable witnesses, and I
accept their evidence as to the special issue, giving their evidence full
J J
weight.
K K
21. As to DW1’s evidence on the special issue, I make the
L L
following observations:
M M
(1) I bear in mind that he is of clear record and give myself
N N
the relevant direction in respect of credibility.
O O
(2) DW1 was not present when the admissions were made
P P
/ when the ROIs were conducted. As such, his evidence
Q pertained only to D’s language abilities and not as to Q
what had occurred during the arrest (when the oral
R R
admission was allegedly made) and the two interviews.
S S
(3) Although DW1 is D’s brother, his evidence showed
T T
that he did not have a good understanding or knowledge
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
of D’s English and Punti fluency / level (especially in
C 2023 when the offence occurred). DW1 had only C
worked with D in around 2014, for at most several
D D
years (when D drove English-speaking clients to/from
E the airport/hotel for DW1’s company). Importantly, E
according to DW1, D was very quiet in general and
F F
DW1 rarely heard him speak; when they did speak, 99%
G of their conversation would be in Punjabi – and the rest G
of their exchanges would be in Punti (with DW1 doing
H H
most of the talking). Given that both of them were very
I fluent in spoken Punjabi, and their exchanges / I
conversations (especially in languages other than
J J
Punjabi) were very rare, it is clear that DW1 would not
K have had many occasions to assess D’s English or Punti K
abilities. I am of the view that DW1’s assessment of
L L
D’s English and Punti abilities cannot be given much
M weight. M
N N
(4) It should be noted that, nonetheless, DW1 admitted that
O D could handle basic communication in English (at O
“40%” according to his assessment), and he believed
P P
that D’s Punti fluency was even higher (at “60%”
Q according to his assessment). Q
R R
(5) All in all, I find DW1 to be an honest witness, but I am
S of the view that his evidence is not very reliable or S
helpful to the court.
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
22. As to the defence submissions on the special issue, I note the
C following: C
D D
(1) The defence insisted that D should have been provided
E with an interpreter of his mother-tongue when the ROIs E
were taken. However, it is clear that one can be fluent
F F
in more than one language, and not everyone is the
G most fluent in his/her so-called mother-tongue or first G
language. Obviously, one can be born in one country,
H H
picking up only the basics of that language at a very
I early age (this being the person’s mother-tongue), and I
then move to another country as a young child, and
J J
subsequently becoming much more fluent in that
K second language than the mother-tongue. On the same K
note, the defence seems to be saying that all South
L L
Asian persons should be provided with an interpreter
M according to his/her nationality or country of descent – M
however, it goes without saying that many South Asian
N N
persons are born and raised in Hong Kong, attending
O school in Hong Kong their whole lives and are O
extremely fluent in English and Chinese. Would it not
P P
be presumptuous for one to assume that all persons in
Q Hong Kong of a certain skin tone (reference to which Q
defence counsel made multiple times) would not be
R R
fluent in Punti or English, or would be more fluent (or
S only fluent) in a language related to their descent? S
Defence counsel implying that someone with an accent
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
indicates lack of fluency in that language is also
C presumptuous and inaccurate. C
D D
(2) In this case, DW1’s evidence indicates that D can speak
E and understand spoken Punjabi fluently. However, he E
cannot read or write in that language. All the evidence
F F
(including DW1’s evidence) support D being
G sufficiently fluent in Punti as well as in English 3 . G
Moreover, the agreed footage of the dashcam of the
H H
Taxi (i.e. P8) supports the prosecution witnesses’
I evidence that D can understand and speak Punti I
fluently – he was able to carry on short conversations /
J J
exchanges with PW1. The fact that D has been in Hong
K Kong for over 25 years (since around 10 years of age) K
and educated for at least 3-4 years in the local system
L L
also supports that he should know at least basic Punti
M and English. M
N N
(3) D wrote out and made the declarations in both ROIs
O that he had read the contents of the statements, that they O
were true and he had made them of his own free will,
P P
and that the records were accurate and the answers were
Q provided by him (see PP13 and PP17), and signed the Q
R R
S S
3
Indeed, as already mentioned, even based on DW1’s evidence D’s Punti is at 60% fluency (as compared
to someone who is completely fluent, i.e., a local), and his English is at 40% fluency. PW4 and PW6’s
evidence was that D could understand and speak Punti based on their interaction with him; PW5 and
T T
PW7’s evidence was that D could understand and read English based on their interaction with him
(including that D had conversed with PW7 about Indian culture and Indian names and whether certain
names were surnames or religious names).
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
same. The evidence shows that this reflected the truth
C of the matter. C
D D
(4) The defence criticises the interpreters for not having
E explained the contents of the declarations to D (in E
addition to reading out and/or asking D to read the
F F
English version of the declarations). I find that criticism
G to be unfair as the said declarations are worded in very G
simple, basic and clear terms – I do not see (1) why the
H H
interpreters should be expected to explain the
I declarations (given they are only acting in the role of I
providing translation from one language to another)
J J
and (2) how they could even do so in simpler language
K than is stated on the face of the declarations / by the K
wording of the declarations themselves.
L L
M (5) Defence counsel handed up the case of HKSAR v Toe M
Eli CACC 120/2020 not to rely on it but to distinguish
N N
it from the present case, in gist, arguing that the
O applicant there had elected English and the court could O
assess his English ability from the video recorded
P P
interview, whereas in the present case, there was no
Q election by D as to language and there is no evidence to Q
help the court assess D’s Punti or English abilities.
R R
Nonetheless, defence counsel in his submissions agreed
S that if D really had been given the choice and if he had S
made an election to use English, that should be
T T
sufficient – defence counsel confirmed that he was not
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
submitting that a defendant should always be provided
C with an interpreter of his mother-tongue (or first C
language). On the issue of language election, I have
D D
already made a finding that the officers did ask D what
E language he chose to use for the ROIs and he elected to E
use English. They thus subsequently (and appropriately)
F F
provided Punti/English interpreters to D at the
G interviews. G
H H
(6) D’s conduct at the interviews (including providing
I answers in English, writing out the declarations, I
signing the same etc) clearly showed that he was
J J
sufficiently fluent / proficient in the language. It is clear
K that D’s English abilities enabled him to understand the K
English contents of the ROIs including the declarations
L L
written out by him and the English answers recorded in
M the statements (which were in simple and M
straightforward language).
N N
O (7) As to the oral admission, defence counsel submitted O
that it was inappropriate for PW4 to have recorded it in
P P
his notebook without asking D to confirm and sign the
Q same. On this point, I note that the evidence shows D Q
spontaneously and voluntarily gave the admission (in
R R
Punti) upon being cautioned at the scene of arrest. I do
S not see how it would be improper for PW4 to record S
that down in his notebook (for the purpose of
T T
reinforcing his own memory, as he stated); PW4 did not
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
ask D to sign the record because D does not know how
C to read Chinese – I am of the view that PW4 dealt with C
the matter properly and reasonably.
D D
E (8) As to the defence allegations 4 of other improper E
conduct by prosecution witnesses (i.e., that they had all
F F
lied, that they had concocted the admissions, and that
G they had used threats and inducements to procure the G
admissions, and had in general handled the case
H H
improperly), I do not accept this to be so or that this
I might have been the case. The defence Grounds of I
Objections is not supported by evidence, and is illogical
J J
and contradictory in many respects. One example is the
K following: it is contended that PW6 made up everything K
and wrote everything in the 2 nd ROI without D having
L L
provided any answers to the questions posed in that
M interview (see para 5.4 of the Grounds of Objection); M
but if that were the case, why would PW6 need to tell
N N
D the story that PW6 had concocted before writing out
O the contents of the ROI (see para 5.2 of the Grounds of O
Objections), in essence teaching D what he should say
P P
/ what the story should be (when D did not need to
Q participate at all or give answers at all in the interview)? Q
R R
4
I also do not agree with defence counsel’s submission that “someone not remembering something
S provides support for the existence or possibility of the existence of something” – i.e., the argument that S
when a prosecution witness stated “no recollection” or “no impression” or “I do not remember” to an
answer in cross-examination, that that is support for the defence case. In particular, I do not agree with
the contention that PW5 / PW7 saying they had no recollection or no impression that something improper
T T
was said to D at the interviews (or that they had no memory of such) provides support for the defence
case that something improper might have been said.
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
It must be borne in mind that D elected not to give
C evidence on the special issue – as stated before, this is C
his right (and no adverse inference would be drawn
D D
because of his election), but this also means there is no
E evidence to support what is alleged in the Grounds of E
Objection or to contradict the evidence of PW2-11.
F F
G 23. I find on the evidence that D can understand and speak Punti G
fluently, and that he can read and write English to the proficiency necessary
H H
for the two ROIs to be conducted and taken. I find on the evidence that D
I voluntarily and spontaneously made the oral admission (accurately I
recorded in PW4’s notebook) in Punti, and that he was asked which
J J
language to use and had elected to use English for the two ROIs. I find on
K the evidence that D’s Punti and English fluency / proficiency levels were K
such as to enable him to sufficiently understand and communicate in those
L L
languages for the purpose of giving the oral admission in Punti and to
M undergo the two interviews with Punti/English interpreters (giving the M
answers and declarations he did in English).
N N
O 24. I find that (1) D made the oral statement under caution in Punti; O
that (2) D provided the answers to the questions in the two ROIs in English;
P P
and (3) he did all this voluntarily (with no threats / inducements made by
Q any prosecution witness). Q
R R
25. On the special issue, I am certain that (1) in respect of the oral
S admission, D clearly understood the contents of the caution, made the oral S
admission (which was subsequently recorded in PP10) voluntarily; and (2)
T T
st nd
in respect of the 1 ROI (PP13) and the 2 ROI (PP17), D clearly
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
understood the contents of the cautions, gave the answers and declarations
C therein voluntarily. I find PP10, PP13 and PP17 to be accurate records. I C
find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the
D D
voluntariness of the said admissions, and I furthermore do not see any
E reason for the court to exercise its discretion to exclude / rule out the same. E
I ruled that the oral admission as well as PP9-14 and PP16-18 were
F F
admissible as evidence; the aforesaid provisional exhibits were thus
G formally marked P9 to P14 and P16 to P18. G
H H
Defence case
I I
26. At the close of the prosecution case (on the general issue), the
J J
defence had no midway submissions. After I ruled a case to answer, D
K elected not to give evidence and did not call other witnesses. K
L L
27. The defence in essence submitted that (1) no weight should be
M given to the alleged admissions of D and (2) PW1 should not be believed. M
In terms of (1), the defence repeats what was submitted on the special issue
N N
and further says that the version purportedly given by D in the admissions
O was inherently improbable 5. O
P P
Analysis of the evidence
Q Q
28. The prosecution has the burden to prove the requisite elements
R R
of the offence beyond reasonable doubt; D has no burden of proof. D has
S no obligation to testify or call any evidence, and I shall not draw any S
adverse inference against him for electing not to do so on the general issue;
T T
5
Paras 17(iii) and 19 of the Closing Skeleton Submissions for D dated 7 July 2025.
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
nonetheless, it means there is no evidence from the defence to undermine,
C contradict or explain the evidence put forward by the prosecution. C
Furthermore, if I am to draw an inference, the inference must be drawn
D D
from facts proved and that the inference must be the only irresistible
E inference to be drawn from the proved facts. In any event, the prosecution E
bears the burden to prove D committed the offence beyond reasonable
F F
doubt.
G G
29. The contents of the oral admission (accurately recorded in P10)
H H
and the two ROIs (PP13 and PP17) are completely inculpatory (and they
I are not mixed statements). In any event, I have considered the whole of the I
contents of the statements in order to determine where the truth lies. I have
J J
already dealt with the defence submissions regarding the issue with
K translation etc above – I do not accept the arguments of the defence. I also K
do not accept the defence argument that the version given in the statements
L L
is inherently improbable or defies logic. D gave a straightforward and
M simple account that he had purchased the HK$500 counterfeit note from a M
person in Wanchai for HK$100, and later had used it to pay PW1 for the
N N
taxi ride. The defence submission that D might have made the admissions
O to protect his girlfriend is mere conjecture with no evidence at all to support O
this possibility. I am sure that the admissions are true, and I give them full
P P
weight.
Q Q
30. The prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1, the driver of
R R
the Taxi. I have considered the criticisms of the defence against PW1. The
S main contention of the defence is that PW1’s evidence in his 1st statement S
(dated 27 February 2023) and 2nd statement (dated 5 June 2025) contain
T T
discrepancies. However, I am of the view that there is nothing material that
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
turns on these alleged discrepancies and moreover that they are not actually
C inconsistent (but merely that more details were provided in the 2 nd C
statement, as explained by PW1). I accept PW1’s explanation for these so-
D D
called discrepancies. For example, the 1st statement did not mention that
E the original destination of the passengers (i.e., D and his companion E
according to the prosecution case) was Chungking Mansion and not K11;
F F
it also did not mention the route the Taxi took from near Chungking
G Mansion to K11. However, it is not in dispute that the final destination was G
K11, and that D and his companion got off at that location. Importantly,
H H
the footage P8 (and the related transcript P19) supports PW1’s evidence
I that D indeed had asked to be driven to Chungking Mansion originally and I
had subsequently changed his mind and told D to drop him off on Mody
J J
Road (at K11). I am of the view the undisputed footage supports PW1’s
K evidence in material aspects. As to the defence argument that PW1 did not K
deny during cross-examination that the counterfeit note could have come
L L
from another passenger, this evidence was already clarified in re-
M examination (PW1 clarifying that what he meant was: he did not know how M
D had obtained the note, but he was sure it was D who had handed him the
N N
note to pay for his taxi ride to K11). The defence also criticises PW1 for
O not having provided the portion of the dashcam footage showing him O
examining the counterfeit note in his taxi after dropping D off at K11;
P P
however, it is clear that the camera points outside the car and not inside the
Q cabin and there would be no conversation during that part of the footage Q
which could assist. I have considered all the arguments put forth by the
R R
defence against PW1 in the closing submissions (both written and oral) and
S I do not accept the defence contentions. All in all, PW1’s evidence was S
clear and straightforward and he did not waver under cross-examination. I
T T
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
find him to be a credible and reliable witness and give his evidence full
C weight. C
D D
31. There is very strong evidence against D in this case. On the
E evidence which has been accepted by the court, I am sure that on the date E
of the offence, D rode in PW1’s Taxi and passed P1 to him for payment,
F F
knowing that P1 was a counterfeit banknote.
G G
32. I find the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
H H
doubt, and D is found guilty of the offence as charged.
I I
J J
K K
( May Chung )
L L
Deputy District Judge
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V