Criminal Law — Valerie Tang secures Acquittal for Defendant charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
After a 1-day trial, the Defendant in HKSAR v Yuen Choy (TMCC 1565/2025) was acquitted of one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (“AOABH”) under Section 39 of Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap.212). It was also ruled that the lesser offence of common assault was not established by the Prosecution.
Valerie Tang appeared for the successful Defendant.
Facts
The Defendant had long standing disputes with his neighbour (the “Neighbour”).
In around November 2025, the Defendant became involved in a scuffle with the Neighbour, during which, inter alia, the Defendant snatched the Neighbour’s umbrella away from her and threw it onto the floor.
The Neighbour alleged that the Defendant had used the umbrella to stab her and caused serious injuries to her hand.
The incident was also witnessed by a passerby (the “Passerby”) who allegedly saw the Defendant hit the upper part of the Neighbour’s body with her umbrella.
The Neighbour (PW1), the Passerby (PW2), the doctor who examined the Neighbour (PW3) and the Defendant gave evidence in Court.
Court’s Findings
In acquitting the Defendant, the learned Deputy Magistrate Cheung Chung-yin Johnny rejected the evidence of both the Neighbour and Passerby, while accepting that of the doctor and the Defendant in full.
The learned Magistrate observed that under cross-examination, the Neighbour greatly exaggerated her injuries which was wholly inconsistent with her medical report. Demonstrations in Court of how the automatic folding umbrella operated also showed that it was impossible for the Neighbour to have been stabbed by any of the metal umbrella spokes as she alleged.
The Passerby was equally unreliable as he was from a distance at the material time and there was in fact no injury to the Neighbour’s upper body as he claimed. There were also discrepancies between his written statement and his oral evidence given in Court.
On the other hand, the Defendant was unshaken under cross-examination. The learned Magistrate found that the Defendant did not do anything which caused injuries to the Neighbour. Even if the Defendant did snatch the Neighbour’s umbrella away from her, the learned Magistrate accepted that it was an act of self-defence as the Neighbour raised her umbrella as if to strike the Defendant. There was also no evidence showing that the act of the Defendant throwing the umbrella in the Neighbour’s direction alarmed or injured her.
After considering both the charge of AOABH and the lesser offence of common assault, based on the evidence above, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Defendant and found him to be not guilty for any offences.
Valerie Tang was instructed by the Duty Lawyer Service.
Valerie Tang
“Valerie is bright, professional, diligent and is able to address the commercial needs of clients in legal disputes. She is able to offer strategic insight into resolving issues, and her work in complex commercial disputes has been well recognized by clients.”
Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2026, Commercial Disputes, Rising Star
Valerie was called to the Hong Kong Bar in 2019. She enjoys a broad civil practice with a special focus on company and commercial law. Valerie is also well-versed in family law, and has experience in land, probate, personal injuries, employment and mental health-related matters.
Prior to obtaining her law degree from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Valerie read International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Valerie is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin, and she accepts instructions in all areas of work.
More details can be found in Valerie’s profile.
This article was first published on 24 February 2026.
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.