HKSAR v. WU SHING CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. WU SHING CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

The conviction of the 1st Appellant was quashed because the magistrate's reasoning demonstrates reliance on the now-abolished presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts, contrary to s.65A(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance, rendering the verdict unsafe; the 2nd Appellant's conviction was upheld because the Crown adduced sufficient evidence (cautioned statement, undercover agent testimony and expert triad evidence) and the magistrate's credibility assessments were lawful and did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial.

Citation
HKSAR v. WU SHING CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: WU SHING CHEUNG; 2nd Appellant: CHAN CHI KIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 July 2000
Case Number
HCMA125/1999
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal of 1st Appellant allowed; conviction quashed. Appeal of 2nd Appellant dismissed; conviction affirmed.
Legal Topics
Intent and Inferences, Presumptions Abolished by Statute, Triad Membership and Activity, Credibility of Undercover Witnesses, Identification Evidence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Public Order Law Societies/triad Law Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Intent and Inferences Presumptions Abolished by Statute Triad Membership and Activity +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

WU SHING CHEUNG

1st Appellant

CHAN CHI KIN

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate relied on an abolished common law presumption of intent contrary to s.65A(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the 2nd Appellant of acting as a member of a triad society (s.20(2) Societies Ordinance)
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of the undercover officer's evidence and alleged identification discrepancies rendered the 2nd Appellant's conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction of the 1st Appellant was quashed because the magistrate's reasoning demonstrates reliance on the now-abolished presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts, contrary to s.65A(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance, rendering the verdict unsafe; the 2nd Appellant's conviction was upheld because the Crown adduced sufficient evidence (cautioned statement, undercover agent testimony and expert triad evidence) and the magistrate's credibility assessments were lawful and did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal of 1st Appellant allowed; conviction quashed. Appeal of 2nd Appellant dismissed; conviction affirmed.

Orders

  • Allow 1st Appellant's appeal against conviction and quash the conviction
  • Dismiss 2nd Appellant's appeal against conviction