Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Flight as consciousness of guilt

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2024

HKSAR v. NAMBUKARA, TANTRILAGA DONASIRI CHARIT JAYASURIYA

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3393
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA432/2023

On rehearing the court accepted the credibility of the police witnesses, found the seized bag was the one thrown by the appellant, and held that the combination of quantity (977g), packaging, immediate flight and concealment permitted the irresistible inference of trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; the appeal is dismissed and conviction upheld.
31 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴陳佐豪

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1281
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2021

The Court held that the trial judge legitimately relied on circumstantial and contemporaneous evidence (location, attire and protective equipment, possession of radio and bandages, timing, escape and the assault by a nearby individual) to infer the applicant participated in the riot; the applicant's immediate claim to be a first aider and DW1's testimony did not rebut the prosecution's case, and there was no unfairness in the judge considering co-present conduct without prior defence notice; accordingly the conviction was safe.
24 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴葉浩賢

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA398/2021

Conviction quashed because, on a full re‑hearing of the admitted evidence and videos, and given that the prosecution limited its case to the subjective basis (intent to provoke others under s17B(2)), the accepted evidence did not exclude reasonable alternative inferences and therefore did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to provoke others to breach the peace. The fresh footage CF1 was not admitted and did not alter the assessment; nonetheless the conviction was unsafe on the evidence presented under the pleaded basis.
10 Sept 2019

香港特別行政區訴梁志文

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1048
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC277/2017

The trial judge did not err: the utterance was admissible and the judge properly directed the jury on its possible meanings; there was no sufficient evidence of police coercion or improper methods to require exclusion or an in‑trial voir dire; the directions on cash and exclusion of phone/phone card evidence were appropriate and not prejudicial. Accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
23 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. HO KWOK ON

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KWOK ON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA979/2005

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate's finding that the appellant attempted to escape at the roadblock was not supported by sufficient evidence and because the magistrate over-relied on identification evidence by treating one identifying officer as 'skilled and experienced' without adequate evidential foundation; those errors rendered the conviction unsafe.
17 Feb 1994

YU CHUN MAN v. R.

Citation

YU CHUN MAN v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC435/1993

Although the trial judge erred in treating the applicant's immediate departure as conclusive evidence of flight and in drawing an unsupported inference that the applicant made silent calls, the remaining evidence—unequivocal admissions, presence near the scene, and a disbelieved alibi—was sufficiently strong that no miscarriage of justice occurred; accordingly the appeal is dismissed under the proviso to s83(1) CPO.
14 Jan 1988

THE QUEEN v. AU YEUNG CHOY

Citation

THE QUEEN v. AU YEUNG CHOY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA941/1987

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate may have been influenced by inadmissible hearsay, failed to give adequate weight to plausible innocent explanations supported by the appellant's circumstances and character, and the Court had a lurking doubt that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, warranting intervention on appeal.
28 Nov 1974

TSOI CHI SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TSOI CHI SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC966/1974

The magistrate did not misapply the burden of proof or err in law; his credibility findings (accepting the prosecution witnesses and rejecting the defence evidence) were within his province as trier of fact. The combination of witness identifications and the constable's evidence of the appellant running when seen by the complainant and police constituted sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the appeal is dismissed.