HKSAR v. LEE SZE WANG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LEE SZE WANG AND ANOTHER

The court held the magistrate erred by equating implausibility with deliberate lying and then using that finding to strengthen adverse inferences of intent for both the offensive-weapon and going-equipped charges; absent independent evidence or admission of falsehood the magistrate could not lawfully treat the explanations as substantive proof of guilt, and accordingly the convictions were unsafe and set aside.

Citation
HKSAR v. LEE SZE WANG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: LEE SZE WANG; 2nd Appellant: LEE SZE CHUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 December 2000
Case Number
HCMA903/2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Eastern Magistracy (magistracy Appeal No. 903 of 2000) / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal of 2nd appellant allowed; convictions set aside; 1st appellant's appeal adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
Offensive Weapon (possession), Going Equipped to Steal, Handling Stolen Goods, Adverse Inferences From Accused's Explanations, Broadhurst Direction
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Offensive Weapon (possession) Going Equipped to Steal Handling Stolen Goods Adverse Inferences From Accused's Explanations Broadhurst Direction

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

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LEE SZE WANG

1st Appellant

LEE SZE CHUNG

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal From Eastern Magistracy (magistracy Appeal No. 903 of 2000) / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in treating an implausible explanation as a deliberate lie and using it to strengthen an adverse inference of intent
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved the mens rea for possession of an offensive weapon under Cap 245 s33
  3. 3 Whether inferences as to intent from possession of tools (gloves, screwdrivers, rope) were justified without specific evidence linking to a particular theft or burglary

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the magistrate erred by equating implausibility with deliberate lying and then using that finding to strengthen adverse inferences of intent for both the offensive-weapon and going-equipped charges; absent independent evidence or admission of falsehood the magistrate could not lawfully treat the explanations as substantive proof of guilt, and accordingly the convictions were unsafe and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal of 2nd appellant allowed; convictions set aside; 1st appellant's appeal adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • Appeal of 2nd appellant allowed and convictions set aside.
  • Hearing of 1st appellant adjourned to a date to be fixed before the same judge.