THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG KAM HUNG

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG KAM HUNG

Because the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the real possibility that at least some of the television sets were intended for personal use by the crew, a mixed intent existed and the inference of resale was not the only available inference; the conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG KAM HUNG
Parties
Appellant (accused): Cheung Kam Hung; Respondent (crown): The Queen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 July 1993
Case Number
HCMA320/1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Judgment From Conviction in Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; appellant discharged from custody.
Legal Topics
Possession of Prescribed Articles, Circumstantial Evidence, Burden of Proof, Mixed Intent, Import and Export (carriage of Articles) Regulations
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Customs and Excise Import and Export Regulation Possession of Prescribed Articles Circumstantial Evidence Burden of Proof Mixed Intent Import and Export (carriage of Articles) Regulations

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Kam Hung

Appellant (accused)

The Queen

Respondent (crown)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Judgment From Conviction in Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the television sets were not intended for personal use by the crew
  2. 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence permitted only the inference of intent to resell
  3. 3 Whether a possible mixed intent renders the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

Because the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the real possibility that at least some of the television sets were intended for personal use by the crew, a mixed intent existed and the inference of resale was not the only available inference; the conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; appellant discharged from custody.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Appeal allowed