THE QUEEN v. FONG CHI MAN AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. FONG CHI MAN AND OTHERS

Although the magistrate made two technical errors in phrasing (stating there was no evidence suggesting absence of intent and describing the back door as seen open), the trial findings show she accepted prosecution evidence and implicitly rejected the appellants' explanations; the primary evidence was overwhelming...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. FONG CHI MAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; 1st Appellant: FONG CHI-MAN; 2nd Appellant: WAN KAM-YAU; 3rd Appellant: LEUNG KWAI-HEI; 8th Appellant: LEUNG SHING-CHOW; 10th Appellant: CHEUNG SIU-KEUNG; 11th Appellant: LO KAM-SHING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 June 1993
Case Number
HCMA313/1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Smuggling, Presumption of Intent, Cautioned (mixed) Statements, Sufficiency of Evidence, Sentence Review
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Customs and Excise Law Procedure on Appeal Smuggling Presumption of Intent Cautioned (mixed) Statements Sufficiency of Evidence Sentence Review

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

FONG CHI-MAN

1st Appellant

WAN KAM-YAU

2nd Appellant

LEUNG KWAI-HEI

3rd Appellant

LEUNG SHING-CHOW

8th Appellant

CHEUNG SIU-KEUNG

10th Appellant

LO KAM-SHING

11th Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate failed to evaluate mixed cautioned statements and make findings on their truth
  2. 2 Whether primary evidence supported the inference that the rear door was open and goods came from inside the premises
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of intent under s.35A(2) could be applied in the absence of evidence to the contrary

Ratio Decidendi

Although the magistrate made two technical errors in phrasing (stating there was no evidence suggesting absence of intent and describing the back door as seen open), the trial findings show she accepted prosecution evidence and implicitly rejected the appellants' explanations; the primary evidence was overwhelming and supported an inference that goods were loaded from inside the premises to evade restriction, therefore the appeals were dismissed and the sentence affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Dismiss appeals against conviction
  • Dismiss appeal against sentence of 15 months imprisonment (third appellant)