HKSAR v. GARCIA ARISTIZABAL MARIA ALEJANDRA

HKSAR v. GARCIA ARISTIZABAL MARIA ALEJANDRA

The application under section 16(1) was dismissed because a properly directed jury could reasonably infer from the defendant's active assistance in disposing drugs from the bathroom window together with other evidence of residence and packets recovered below the window that the 5th defendant was in joint possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking; therefore a prima facie case exists and the matter is for the jury.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2109
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 5th Defendant: Garcia Aristizabal Maria Alejandra
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 2019
Case Number
HCCC110/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs / Pre Trial No Case Submission Under Section 16(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance; Ruling on Application to Discharge
Outcome
Section 16(1) application dismissed; matter to proceed to jury trial
Legal Topics
Sufficiency of Evidence, Joint Possession, Trafficking, Section 16 Criminal Procedure Ordinance, No Case Submission, Circumstantial Evidence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Drugs Law Procedural Law Sufficiency of Evidence Joint Possession Trafficking Section 16 Criminal Procedure Ordinance +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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Garcia Aristizabal Maria Alejandra

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs / Pre Trial No Case Submission Under Section 16(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance; Ruling on Application to Discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for trafficking against the 5th defendant
  2. 2 Whether the 5th defendant's actions permit an inference of joint possession and custody/control of drugs seized inside the premises
  3. 3 Availability of alternative verdicts such as possession or trafficking in lesser amount

Ratio Decidendi

The application under section 16(1) was dismissed because a properly directed jury could reasonably infer from the defendant's active assistance in disposing drugs from the bathroom window together with other evidence of residence and packets recovered below the window that the 5th defendant was in joint possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking; therefore a prima facie case exists and the matter is for the jury.

Court Disposition

Section 16(1) application dismissed; matter to proceed to jury trial

Orders

  • Section 16(1) application dismissed
  • Proceed to trial (trial previously set down for November)