THE QUEEN v. SO CHI WING AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. SO CHI WING AND ANOTHER

For D2 the magistrate's rejection of PW1's evidence about the location of the goods (and the admission that the photographs were taken later) undermined the prosecution case and created a lurking doubt about knowledge and intent, requiring allowance of the appeal. For D3 the unreliability and discrepancies in PW2's evidence about events and the taking of the cautioned statement made it unsafe to base a conviction solely on that statement, requiring allowance of the appeal.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. SO CHI WING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: The Queen; 1st Appellant: So Chi Wing; 2nd Appellant: So Kwok Fai
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 May 1993
Case Number
HCMA263/1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Magistrate (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Possession of Restricted Articles, Assisting to Evade Restriction, Presumption Under S.35 A(2), Admissibility and Weight of Cautioned Statements, Witness Credibility and Demeanour
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Statutory Interpretation Customs and Import/export Regulation Possession of Restricted Articles Assisting to Evade Restriction Presumption Under S.35 A(2) Admissibility and Weight of Cautioned Statements +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

So Chi Wing

1st Appellant

So Kwok Fai

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal From Magistrate (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence against D2 proved knowledge and intent beyond reasonable doubt given discrepancies in witness evidence and photographs
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under s.35A(2) was properly engaged and rebutted
  3. 3 Whether conviction of D3 based solely on a cautioned statement was safe where the police witness's evidence was unreliable and contained discrepancies

Ratio Decidendi

For D2 the magistrate's rejection of PW1's evidence about the location of the goods (and the admission that the photographs were taken later) undermined the prosecution case and created a lurking doubt about knowledge and intent, requiring allowance of the appeal. For D3 the unreliability and discrepancies in PW2's evidence about events and the taking of the cautioned statement made it unsafe to base a conviction solely on that statement, requiring allowance of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Convictions of So Chi Wing quashed
  • Conviction of So Kwok Fai quashed