香港特別行政區 訴 何昌舜

香港特別行政區 訴 何昌舜

The appellate court, on a re‑hearing, accepted the prosecution's contemporaneous photographic and witness evidence and the trial judge's credibility findings; given the vehicle layout, the location of the opened bag and that only the appellant was handling the rear of the vehicle, the only reasonable inference was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2053
Parties
上訴人: 何昌舜（D2）; 答辯人: 香港特別行政區
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 May 2024
Case Number
HCMA240/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction (dutiable Commodities) / Appeal Hearing (re Hearing) – Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Handling Dutiable Goods, Possession of Unstamped Tobacco, Knowledge Element, Appellate Re‑hearing Standard
Source Language
ch
Criminal Law Customs and Excise Regulatory Enforcement Handling Dutiable Goods Possession of Unstamped Tobacco Knowledge Element Appellate Re‑hearing Standard

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

何昌舜（D2）

上訴人

香港特別行政區

答辯人

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction (dutiable Commodities) / Appeal Hearing (re Hearing) – Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant knew the goods were dutiable tobacco products
  2. 2 Whether the appellant handled/touched the opened bag containing cigarettes
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing and rejecting the appellant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court, on a re‑hearing, accepted the prosecution's contemporaneous photographic and witness evidence and the trial judge's credibility findings; given the vehicle layout, the location of the opened bag and that only the appellant was handling the rear of the vehicle, the only reasonable inference was the appellant moved/touched the bag and must have seen its cigarette contents and therefore knew the goods were dutiable; the evidence proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under Cap.109 s.17(1) affirmed