THE QUEEN v. LAU HAK SHING

THE QUEEN v. LAU HAK SHING

The circumstantial matrix—location of tapes in Unit 3, matching labels/posters indicating Megagold, business and address links, printer testimony connecting Lau to deliveries and payments—supported the magistrate's inference that Lau exercised control and was in possession of the offending articles; those inferences were sufficient to uphold the convictions.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. LAU HAK SHING
Parties
Respondent (crown): The Queen; Appellant/accused: LAU Hak-shing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 August 1992
Case Number
HCMA448/1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Against Convictions; Appeal Heard and Determined on Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession, Circumstantial Evidence, Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance Cap.390, Inference of Knowledge and Control
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Statutory Regulation of Obscene Material Evidence Law Possession Circumstantial Evidence Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance Cap.390 Inference of Knowledge and Control

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent (crown)

LAU Hak-shing

Appellant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Against Convictions; Appeal Heard and Determined on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession for publication
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was in control/possession of the offending articles given links to premises and business names
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate erred in drawing inferences from the circumstantial matrix of facts

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstantial matrix—location of tapes in Unit 3, matching labels/posters indicating Megagold, business and address links, printer testimony connecting Lau to deliveries and payments—supported the magistrate's inference that Lau exercised control and was in possession of the offending articles; those inferences were sufficient to uphold the convictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions under s.26(b) and s.21(1)(b) of Cap.390 affirmed