由此 - 10 A A the judge—for the first time—the issue of alibi. He told the judge that he B B only became aware that same morning that the applicant had an alibi. C D Application was then made to lead alibi evidence. The prosecution did not resist the application. No explanation was tendered as to the reason C D for the lateness of such a notification. The case was adjourned after E F G H Miss X and the policeman who arrested the applicant finished their evidence. 32. E F DW2 is the brother-in-law of the applicant. He gave evidence when the case resumed that on 5 August 2005, he went to the G H Buddhist Hospital in Wong Tai Sin to visit his maternal grandfather. I J When he arrived there at 12:30 p.m., his sister—who was then the applicant’s girlfriend—and the applicant were already present at the I J hospital. The applicant did not leave the hospital until 2 p.m. His K K grandfather died later that same date. L L 33. If DW2’s evidence was true or could have been true, such M M alibi evidence would have thrown doubt on the evidence of Miss X in N O P Q R S T relation to the indecent assault at the Emerald House. 34. The judge dealt with this in para. 17 of his Reasons for Verdict (AB 21): “… As to the evidence of DW1, Mr Ma Kai-yin, the brother-in-law of the defendant, I attach little or no weight to it. The application to produce alibi evidence of this nature was made after Miss X had given evidence under cross-examination that the assault which is the subject matter of charge 5 took place on 5 August 2005 between 12 noon and 3 pm. No proper explanation has been put forward as to the reasons for the lateness of this application. In any event, I have already accepted the evidence of Miss X that in relation to charge 5 she was the subject of a gross indecent assault at the hands of the N O P Q R S T U U V V