Witness for the Prosecution

In LAA 988/2024, Mr Gordon Chan successfully appealed the refusal of the Director of Legal Aid to grant legal aid for an employee to pursue an Employees’ Compensation claim against his employer.

The appellant was a mechanic at a garage. One day while at work, his manager approached him and made physical contact. The appellant then fell to the floor and sustained injuries.

The manager faced charges of common assault. The appellant served as a witness for the prosecution; however, the manager was acquitted.

Meanwhile, the appellant initiated an Employee’s Compensation claim against the garage. Nevertheless, the Director of Legal Aid denied his request for legal aid for the claim, referencing the Magistrate’s findings in acquitting the manager.

In granting legal aid to the appellant at the appeal, Deputy Registrar Doris To acknowledged that due to the vastly different nature of the proceedings, the findings of the Magistrate hold limited relevance in a civil proceeding.

It has been held in Leung Wah v Kan Siu Ming (HCPI 1303/1998) that issue estoppel does not arise for the plaintiff in a civil proceeding when a parallel criminal prosecution against the defendant is unsuccessful. It simply does not aid the defendant.  Furthermore, an acquittal of a defendant on the criminal standard is consistent with finding him liable on the balance of probabilities in a civil case.

This case presents an interesting situation where the same incident led to parallel proceedings. Caution is necessary in attempting to apply the findings of one case to another.