Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Identification of exhibits

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2014

香港特別行政區訴謝伊琳

Citation

香港特別行政區訴謝伊琳
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA19/2014

The trial judge permissibly relied on PW2's independent contemporaneous eyewitness account of the transfer of money and two packets between appellant and D1; viewed in sequence and on logical grounds this established that the two packets provided by the appellant were the same items later handed to the undercover officers and exhibited as the seized cocaine; ancillary discrepancies in sketches/photos and uncertainty about who sealed exhibits did not materially undermine identification or credibility; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal dismissed.
9 Jan 1991

THE QUEEN v. HO SHUN HONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HO SHUN HONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC452/1990

The cautioned statements were voluntary, properly recorded and signed and, insofar as they related identifiable stolen articles to specific charges, were sufficient to support convictions; consequently there was no basis to grant leave to appeal against conviction.
10 Jul 1985

THE QUEEN v. LAM SAI LAM

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM SAI LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA347/1985

The magistrate reasonably accepted the identification and unchallenged evidence of PW1 and PW2, found the chain of evidence sufficient to link the recovered items to the victim site, and on proper consideration could infer recent theft given the nature of the items and the appellant's lack of plausible storage; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
28 Jan 1977

CHAU KIN KEI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAU KIN KEI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC9/1977

The conviction was unsustainable and must be quashed because there was no admissible evidence on the record identifying the knife as the weapon thrown by the appellant nor any admissible evidence establishing that the article was an offensive weapon; hearsay identification could not support the magistrate's findings.
2 May 1974

CHAN WING SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN WING SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/1974

The appeal was dismissed because the matching particulars in the certificate (date, number of packets, delivering officer and return date), the judge's reliance on the certificate in his Reasons for Verdict, and the sealing/storage of exhibits provided a sufficient connection between the Government Chemist's certificate and the drugs seized from the appellant such that the certificate was properly admitted and the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
4 May 1973

WONG KAM SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG KAM SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC99/1973

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the sentences of twenty months on each count ordered to run consecutively were not shown to be manifestly excessive and the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion was proper; the Court declined to entertain informal doubt cast on the prior authority WONG Hing-chung in the absence of full argument and saw no reason to doubt that decision.
17 Nov 1972

WONG KWAI @ WONG FU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG KWAI @ WONG FU v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC717/1972

The magistrate's acceptance of the witness identification combined with the immediate recovery of three squashed packets beneath the window provided sufficient evidence to support conviction; the appellate court will not disturb that finding absent clear error.
16 Nov 1970

NAWAB HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

NAWAB HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC401/1970

The conviction was upheld because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly possessed opium: he produced and unlocked two suitcases in the presence of Revenue officers, opium was found in false bottoms revealed in his presence (and the briefcase was identified in his presence), and he made incriminating admissions; these facts satisfied the requisite knowledge and possession and justified affirmation of conviction and sentence.