Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Custody and control

  • 22 Jul 2024

    HKSAR v. ABBAS WASEEM AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 535
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC197/2021

    The Court held the judge did not err: (1) D1’s brief evidence of prior uncharged dealings with D2 was background and not so material or prejudicial as to require a special direction; (2) a Li Jin direction was unnecessary because the prosecution case against D3 was not based on mere presence but on evidence of active, knowing participation enabling a jury to convict without that particular direction; and (3) sentencing for D3 required recognition of her subordinate role to D2, warranting reduction of her sentence from 28 to 25 years.

  • 19 May 2016

    HKSAR v. LEUNG CHI KEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEUNG CHI KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC373/2015

    The judge reasonably drew the only permissible inference that the applicant knew of and was in possession of the child pornography because the files were in his Foxy download folder, were readily accessible and had been accessed repeatedly between 2008 and 2013, the computer was found in his bedroom, and alternative explanations (virus, third-party access, malfunction) were rejected on the evidence; accordingly there are no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal and leave is refused.

  • 7 Feb 2014

    HKSAR v. MAHMOOD YASAR

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MAHMOOD YASAR
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC303/2012

    The judge's summing-up and directions were adequate to address the inferences relied upon by the prosecution and the points raised by defence; no material omission (including no need for a lies direction) rendered the trial unfair; the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find knowledge and custody/control; therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction is without merit and is dismissed.

  • 3 May 2012

    香港特別行政區 訴 王得權

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 王得權
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA853/2011

    Given appellant admitted the weapons were in the flat when he moved in, held keys, observed the weapons stored beside his bed, received information from the owner that the knives would be used to attack triad members, and the weapons' condition and packaging pointed to illegal use, the only reasonable inference was that he had custody/control and intent to use them unlawfully; conviction was therefore safe and must be upheld.

  • 12 Dec 2005

    HKSAR v. CHAN KA KIN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN KA KIN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC474/2004

    The Court held the trial judge's directions on inference, separation of charges and possession were adequate and the convictions were safe; however the prosecution failed to prove the prevalence of the specified offence required to trigger s27 OSCO, so the s27 enhancements were unjustified and were set aside; Tam Wai-pio principle governs calculation of s27 enhancement and Lai's sentence was reduced accordingly.