22 Aug 2014
The magistrate erred in treating r.6(1D)(a) as a right and in artificially splitting the single act of exporting 3.6 kg into an exempt 1.8 kg export and a separate criminal act; r.6(1D)(a) is an exemption applicable only where the total quantity does not exceed 1.8 kg, so the respondent's conduct constituted an attempt to export 3.6 kg and is not partially exempt.
3 Apr 2009
Given the objective test of reasonable diligence and the factual matrix (appellant acting as a favour/shipping intermediary for a known supplier, limited inspection of goods, plausible reasons for rapid shipment and lack of customary certificates), the appellate court concluded that the appellant could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the forged trade marks and therefore proved the defence under s.12(2)(a); conviction was unsafe and was set aside.
21 May 2008
The trial Magistrate accepted the prosecution eyewitness testimony that the unlit vessel was heading northeast, attempted to escape, and when boarded contained a large quantity of unmanifested cargo; those findings supported the legitimate inference that the Appellants were attempting to export unmanifested goods and the appellate court found no material error or irregularity in those factual findings and dismissed the appeal.
26 Mar 2008
Appellant did not discharge the statutory burden to prove lack of knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe the goods were infringing because his position in a commercial forwarding operation, receipt of cash from an untraceable supplier and payment of shipping from his account provided sufficient reason to suspect illegality; therefore convictions stand.
11 Mar 1999
Similar fact evidence was properly admitted and could be used to infer participation and control in respect of the 1st applicant because the probative force and striking similarities made alternative explanations implausible; by contrast the evidence was not properly usable to sustain convictions of the 2nd and 3rd applicants because there was insufficient proof they were involved in the prior incident and inferences of knowledge/complicity were unsafe, so their convictions were quashed.
29 Oct 1998
Section 18(1)(b) is a strict liability offence; s.18(2) requires a defendant to prove both lack of knowledge of unmanifested cargo and that he could not with reasonable diligence have known; knowledge or intention to export is not an element the prosecution must prove; the appellant failed to establish the statutory defence and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Jul 1997
The magistrate was entitled to accept the voice identification given frequent and specific telephone contacts corroborated by documentary and witness evidence; he had given adequate warning about voice identification, and on the whole evidence the convictions were safe and should be upheld.
3 Apr 1992
Convictions quashed because the Magistrate failed to consider a realistic alternative hypothesis that the 2nd appellant acted alone (a 'frolic'), rendering the joint guilt inference unsafe; the appellate court would not apply the proviso to uphold convictions where that would require re-assessing factual inferences.
10 Oct 1990
The offences, particularly the second charge concerning forged trade-marked watches, were not merely technical and forfeiture was an appropriate and lawful exercise of the magistrate's discretion; the magistrate erred in not ordering forfeiture and in preventing consideration of relevant arguments on review, therefore forfeiture of the goods specified in the second charge should be ordered.
20 May 1988
The Court of Appeal held the magistrate did not err in refusing to order forfeiture because he lawfully exercised his discretion having regard to the absence of fiscal evasion, the limited extent and disputed value of the attempted export, and lack of evidence that the seizure affected Hong Kong-China relations; the appeal was dismissed.