HKSAR v. MOALA ALIPATE

HKSAR v. MOALA ALIPATE

The court found the emails between defendant and Antony were genuine and, when taken with the defendant's VRI denial, were capable of supporting only a single reasonable inference—that the defendant was duped into transporting alleged 'chemicals' and therefore innocent; DNA evidence could be explained by indirect transfer scenarios and did not exclude that innocence inference; s47 only imposes an evidential burden which the emails and VRI satisfy; accordingly no properly directed jury could be sure to draw an adverse inference beyond reasonable doubt and the judge ruled no case to answer.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2611
Parties
Prosecutor: HKSAR; Defendant: Moala Alipate
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 September 2021
Case Number
HCCC76/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug / No Case to Answer Submission at Close of Prosecution Case; Court Ruling
Outcome
No case to answer; charge dismissed
Legal Topics
No Case to Answer, Circumstantial Evidence, DNA Evidence, Presumption of Knowledge (s47 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance), Drawing of Inferences, Search and Handling of Exhibits
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law No Case to Answer Circumstantial Evidence DNA Evidence Presumption of Knowledge (s47 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance) Drawing of Inferences +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecutor

Moala Alipate

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug / No Case to Answer Submission at Close of Prosecution Case; Court Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant knew drugs were concealed inside two game consoles
  2. 2 Whether defence emails and VRI produce the only reasonable inference of innocence
  3. 3 Whether DNA evidence excludes the innocence inference or proves contact with the packets

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the emails between defendant and Antony were genuine and, when taken with the defendant's VRI denial, were capable of supporting only a single reasonable inference—that the defendant was duped into transporting alleged 'chemicals' and therefore innocent; DNA evidence could be explained by indirect transfer scenarios and did not exclude that innocence inference; s47 only imposes an evidential burden which the emails and VRI satisfy; accordingly no properly directed jury could be sure to draw an adverse inference beyond reasonable doubt and the judge ruled no case to answer.

Court Disposition

No case to answer; charge dismissed

Orders

  • Ruling that the defendant has no case to answer in respect of the sole count of trafficking in a dangerous drug; charge dismissed