Criminal Law — Eunice Lui Acts for the Appellant in a Successful Appeal against Conviction
Priscilia Lam SC and Eunice Lui acted for the Appellant in the case of 香港特別行政區 訴 梁鎮宗 [2025] HKCFI 5626, an appeal against conviction of an indecent assault charge. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.
The Appellant, a renowned photographer, was charged with and convicted of a charge of indecent assault at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court. The appeal grounds were as follows: (1) the Magistrate erred in allowing the Prosecution to cross-examine the Appellant based on matters which infringed his right to silence; (2) the Magistrate erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses; and (3) the Magistrate erred in law by taking judicial notice of photoshop technology.
Deputy High Court Judge Li allowed the appeal and no retrial was ordered.
林芷瑩資深大律師和呂灼賢大律師代表香港特別行政區 訴 梁鎮宗 [2025] HKCFI 5626 一案的上訴人。該案上訴人被控一項「猥褻侵犯」罪，而上訴人的定罪上訴得直，獲準撤銷定罪。
上訴人是一位著名的攝影師。上訴人面對一項「猥褻侵犯」罪，早前於東區裁判法院被裁定罪名成立。上訴人的定罪上訴建基於三個上訴理由，即：(1) 原審裁判官錯誤地容許控方向上訴人作出侵犯其緘默權的盤問；(2) 原審裁判官在評估控方證人的可信性及可靠性時犯了錯誤；以及 (3) 原審裁判官錯誤地就修圖技術採納司法認知的原則。
高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官李俊文裁定上訴人的定罪上訴得直，並沒有下令重審。
Eunice Lui
Eunice was called to the Bar in 2024 and joined Chambers in the same year. Eunice is developing a broad civil practice, with particular emphasis on land-related matters. Eunice has recently appeared in two compulsory sale cases with Ross, in which one case concerns a building in Wong Nai Chung Road, and the other case being Tai Chung Property Ltd v Chen Lan Sum Irene (LDCS 4000/2023) [2025] HKLdT 40, which involves a building erected under the old Civil Servants’ Cooperative Building Society Scheme. Eunice accepts instructions in all areas of Chambers’ work.
Visit Eunice’s profile for more details.
This article was first published on 1 December 2025.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.