Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidential inferences

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2020

香港特別行政區訴黃淑珍

Citation

[2020] HKCA 762
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2020

Bail was granted because the court found there existed reasonable and arguable grounds of appeal against the conviction—specifically that the trial judge's inference of the applicant's knowledge of the husband's benefits was contestable given evidence that the husband may have concealed the facts—and because the applicant faced imminent release and the appeal had not been scheduled, so bail on conditions was appropriate.
9 Nov 2017

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YOUNG BIK FUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YOUNG BIK FUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/2016

The Court held s300 applies to a fraudulent scheme encompassing both purchase and subsequent acceptance of a tender offer such that fraud/deception need not be directed at immediate counterparties; where a substantial measure of the activities constituting the offence occurred in Hong Kong (misuse/disclosure of confidential information, deposits, instructions, signatures, acceptance communications), s300 applies even if the securities are listed overseas; s213(2)(b) empowers restoration against a person involved in the matters whether knowingly or otherwise and a restoration order against Ste…
29 May 2013

CHUI TAK KEUNG DUNCAN v. MARKET MISCONDUCT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUI TAK KEUNG DUNCAN v. MARKET MISCONDUCT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1848/2012

The Court refused leave because the contested grounds primarily attacked factual findings and the weight of evidence of the MMT; under s.266 an appeal on fact requires a reasonable prospect of success, which was not shown here, and credibility/inference issues remain matters for the tribunal.
8 Mar 2013

HKSAR v. SUBASINGHE MUDIYANESELAGE NANDIKA PIYAL

Citation

HKSAR v. SUBASINGHE MUDIYANESELAGE NANDIKA PIYAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA357/2012

The application for a certificate to refer questions to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the proposed questions were primarily factual and involved case‑specific inferences rather than points of law, they were not of great and general importance as required by s32(2), no adverse inference arose from the appellant's silence, and the recognisance did not constitute an order for payment.
9 Jan 2013

HKSAR v. LIU SHI HONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU SHI HONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC113/2012

Where evidence showed the applicant was suspicious and avoided inspecting the suitcase, a shut‑eye direction was correctly given and properly qualified; the judge made clear the prosecution still had to prove guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt; sentencing followed applicable guidelines for 640g heroin with one year uplift for cross‑border aggravation, so neither conviction nor sentence could be disturbed.
16 Mar 2011

LAM HON NAM v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM HON NAM v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV36/2010

The Tribunal's findings that the applicant communicated price‑sensitive information to Silvia Chan were supported by admissions, phone records and the timing and pattern of her transactions; those factual inferences were open to the Tribunal and properly upheld on appeal, so leave to appeal is dismissed.
5 Oct 2010

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TSOI BUN

Citation

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TSOI BUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA451/2010

The magistrate failed to articulate analysis of undisputed primary facts and permissible inferences required by Leung Chi Kin; the High Court ordered under s109 Magistrates Ordinance that the magistrate amend the case stated to set out his reasoning and findings of fact and inferences, and directed that if reappointed he provide the amended case stated within 60 days of reappointment.
28 Jan 1999

HKSAR v. WONG KA KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KA KUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC35/1998

On the evidence of possession of a bag containing heroin, fingerprints inside the premises, possession of keys fitting the padlock and letterboxes, and attendant inferences properly directed, there was a prima facie case on Count 2 and the convictions for D1 were safe; the trial judge erred in principle in not giving D2 the full one‑third guilty plea discount, and the sentences for D2 are reduced accordingly.
12 Sept 1995

R. v. CHOW KWOK FUNG

Citation

R. v. CHOW KWOK FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC511/1994

The Court upheld the trial judge's acceptance of the victim's evidence, held the judge was entitled to infer that the applicant knew the cup contained sulphuric acid and intended to cause grievous bodily harm, and concluded the seven year sentence was within proper discretionary bounds; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction and leave to appeal against sentence out of time were refused.
1 Nov 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHANG MU HUA AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHANG MU HUA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1172/1988

Where employees merely provide sexual services without exercising control or participating in management they are not guilty of assisting in management under s.139; conversely presence in a managerial role or handling of illicit proceeds supports conviction; sentencing for first offenders must be moderated where no aggravating factors exist, warranting reduction of custodial terms.