HKSAR v. DINDA RABIATUL ADWIA AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. DINDA RABIATUL ADWIA AND ANOTHER

Given the limited proven facts and credible alternative innocent explanations supported by the defendants' interviews, a properly directed reasonable jury could not be compelled to infer knowledge; accordingly the judge stopped the case at the close of the Crown case and directed the jury that there was no case to answer.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1858
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: DINDA Rabiatul Adwia; 2nd Defendant: HARTATI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2021
Case Number
HCCC136/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Trial at Close of Crown Case; Judge Ruled No Case to Answer and Stopped the Case
Outcome
Case stopped at close of Crown case; judge directed jury there was no case to answer
Legal Topics
No Case to Answer, Drawing of Inferences, Burden of Proof, Right to Silence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Drugs Trafficking Evidence No Case to Answer Drawing of Inferences Burden of Proof Right to Silence

Case Brief

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

DINDA Rabiatul Adwia

1st Defendant

HARTATI

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Trial at Close of Crown Case; Judge Ruled No Case to Answer and Stopped the Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer knowledge of the dangerous drug
  2. 2 Proper test for drawing adverse inferences from limited circumstantial facts
  3. 3 Whether prosecution impermissibly relied on silence or reversed burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

Given the limited proven facts and credible alternative innocent explanations supported by the defendants' interviews, a properly directed reasonable jury could not be compelled to infer knowledge; accordingly the judge stopped the case at the close of the Crown case and directed the jury that there was no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Case stopped at close of Crown case; judge directed jury there was no case to answer

Orders

  • No case to answer; prosecution case stopped and jury directed accordingly