HKSAR v. LIU ZHIHUA

HKSAR v. LIU ZHIHUA

Applying the Tang Sau Ling test, the judge concluded the circumstantial evidence was such that a properly directed jury could reasonably infer the defendant knew the parcel contained drugs; therefore the section 16(1) discharge application was dismissed and the question is for the jury.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. LIU ZHIHUA
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Defendant: LIU ZHIHUA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 August 2017
Case Number
HCCC263/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug / Pre Arraignment Discharge Application Under Section 16(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance
Outcome
Application dismissed; matter to be decided by a jury
Legal Topics
Prima Facie, Controlled Delivery, Circumstantial Evidence, Section 16(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance, No Case to Answer
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Drug Trafficking Evidence Criminal Procedure Prima Facie Controlled Delivery Circumstantial Evidence Section 16(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LIU ZHIHUA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug / Pre Arraignment Discharge Application Under Section 16(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence disclosed is insufficient to establish a prima facie case under s16(1) CPO
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial evidence permits the only reasonable inference that the defendant knew the parcel contained dangerous drugs
  3. 3 Whether the judge should usurp the jury's role when inferences are required

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Tang Sau Ling test, the judge concluded the circumstantial evidence was such that a properly directed jury could reasonably infer the defendant knew the parcel contained drugs; therefore the section 16(1) discharge application was dismissed and the question is for the jury.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; matter to be decided by a jury

Orders

  • Section 16(1) discharge application dismissed
  • No discharge ordered; defendant to be arraigned and tried