HKSAR v. KO WAI KIT AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. KO WAI KIT AND ANOTHER

Applying the Galbraith/AG v Li Fook Shiu test to admissible evidence (controlled delivery events, call and WhatsApp records, delivery signature, CCTV, phones seized), a properly directed jury could reasonably infer that each accused knew the parcel contained dangerous drugs and that their acts (nominating a recipient, providing airway bill, receiving the parcel) amounted to dealing in or with the drug for the purpose of trafficking; therefore submission of no case to answer dismissed for both accused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 3002
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Accused: KO Wai Kit; 2nd Accused: HUI Wai Kit
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 December 2020
Case Number
HCCC252/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug / Submission of No Case to Answer (preliminary Ruling)
Outcome
Submission of no case to answer dismissed; there is a case to answer against both accused
Legal Topics
Trafficking, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, No Case to Answer Test, Circumstantial Evidence, Admissibility of Electronic/whats App Evidence, Controlled Delivery
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Procedural Law Trafficking Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking No Case to Answer Test Circumstantial Evidence +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

KO Wai Kit

1st Accused

HUI Wai Kit

2nd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug / Submission of No Case to Answer (preliminary Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a case to answer against each accused under section 4 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether evidence admissible and of sufficient quality to permit a jury to infer knowledge and intention to traffic
  3. 3 Whether acts of the accused constitute 'dealing in' or 'dealing with' a dangerous drug

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Galbraith/AG v Li Fook Shiu test to admissible evidence (controlled delivery events, call and WhatsApp records, delivery signature, CCTV, phones seized), a properly directed jury could reasonably infer that each accused knew the parcel contained dangerous drugs and that their acts (nominating a recipient, providing airway bill, receiving the parcel) amounted to dealing in or with the drug for the purpose of trafficking; therefore submission of no case to answer dismissed for both accused.

Court Disposition

Submission of no case to answer dismissed; there is a case to answer against both accused

Orders

  • Submission of no case to answer dismissed in respect of both accused
  • Case to proceed to jury trial on the indictment for trafficking in a dangerous drug