HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

The court held there is a case to answer against each defendant: the statutory definitions in the Crimes Ordinance read with the Dangerous Goods Ordinance and established English authorities provide a sufficiently precise and broad meaning of 'explosive substance', and the prosecution evidence (surveillance, exhibits, expert opinion) if accepted by a jury could properly support convictions; the constitutional challenge and arguments about regulatory classification and reverse onus were rejected or inapplicable at this stage.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 321
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: CHAN Yiu-shing; 2nd Defendant: CHENG Wai-shing; 3rd Defendant: PENNELLI Rizzy; 4th Defendant: WU Kai-fu; 5th Defendant: MAN Ting-lock
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 October 2017
Case Number
HCCC41/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
Application for no case to answer dismissed; court rules there is a case to answer against each defendant
Legal Topics
Explosive Substances, Possession, Making Explosives, Conspiracy, No Case to Answer, Reverse Onus, Presumption of Innocence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Statutory Interpretation Constitutional Law Explosive Substances Possession Making Explosives Conspiracy +3 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHAN Yiu-shing

1st Defendant

CHENG Wai-shing

2nd Defendant

PENNELLI Rizzy

3rd Defendant

WU Kai-fu

4th Defendant

MAN Ting-lock

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a case to answer against each defendant
  2. 2 Proper legal meaning of 'explosive substance' under section 55 CO and interaction with Dangerous Goods Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether s55 CO or its application violates presumption of innocence/right to fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court held there is a case to answer against each defendant: the statutory definitions in the Crimes Ordinance read with the Dangerous Goods Ordinance and established English authorities provide a sufficiently precise and broad meaning of 'explosive substance', and the prosecution evidence (surveillance, exhibits, expert opinion) if accepted by a jury could properly support convictions; the constitutional challenge and arguments about regulatory classification and reverse onus were rejected or inapplicable at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for no case to answer dismissed; court rules there is a case to answer against each defendant

Orders

  • No case submissions dismissed
  • Proceed to trial by jury on the counts as charged