HKSAR v. KOO WAI LAU AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. KOO WAI LAU AND ANOTHER

Given the large number of similarly packaged cartons, the presence of opened cartons exposing dutiable cigarette packets, and the appellants' conduct in transporting cartons between warehouses, the court held that an irresistible inference arose that the appellants knew the goods were dutiable and that transporting/storing those goods amounted to dealing under s.17(1); the magistrate's limited reasons did not render convictions unsafe.

Citation
HKSAR v. KOO WAI LAU AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: Koo Wai Lau; 2nd Appellant: Cheung Kwok Keung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 1999
Case Number
HCMA790/1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Convictions) / Appeal Against Conviction to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; convictions affirmed
Legal Topics
Dealing Vs Possession, Mens Rea/knowledge, Inference From Circumstantial Evidence, Magistrate's Reasons, Appeal Against Conviction
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Customs and Excise Dutiable Commodities Ordinance Evidence Law Dealing Vs Possession Mens Rea/knowledge Inference From Circumstantial Evidence Magistrate's Reasons +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Koo Wai Lau

1st Appellant

Cheung Kwok Keung

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Convictions) / Appeal Against Conviction to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transporting or storing contraband cigarettes constitutes "dealing" under the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved the necessary mental element (knowledge that goods were dutiable) beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's failure to set out detailed reasons for conviction rendered the convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

Given the large number of similarly packaged cartons, the presence of opened cartons exposing dutiable cigarette packets, and the appellants' conduct in transporting cartons between warehouses, the court held that an irresistible inference arose that the appellants knew the goods were dutiable and that transporting/storing those goods amounted to dealing under s.17(1); the magistrate's limited reasons did not render convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; convictions affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction dismissed
  • Convictions on both charges affirmed