Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Importation

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2025

香港特別行政區訴洪大軒及另二人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 781
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC90/2023

The judge's reply to the jury introduced and permitted conviction on a factual and legal basis that was not the prosecution's pleaded basis (importation), thereby materially widening the basis for conviction without appropriate direction; this deprived defendants of a fair trial and made the convictions unsafe, requiring that the convictions and sentences be quashed and a retrial ordered in the interests of justice under Cap.221 s83E(1).
7 Oct 2021

香港特別行政區訴林子寒

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2995
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA285/2021

Although objective facts showed a close link between the appellant and the parcel (name/address match and multiple telephone calls from the airwaybill number), the prosecution did not prove that the appellant participated in importing the drugs; the evidence did not permit the unique and irresistible inference that he was involved in the importation, and the acts proved did not go beyond mere preparation so as to sustain a conviction or permit substitution to attempt. Therefore the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed.
28 Oct 2020

HKSAR v. WANG ZHI

Citation

[2020] HKCA 863
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC232/2018

Leave to appeal was granted only on discrete, reasonably arguable grounds: (1) an error in excluding or treating part of the applicant's testimony as hearsay; (2) potentially inadequate or misleading directions to the jury concerning the contested oral admission, inferences and the limited use of the police post-record; (3) failure to give a lifestyle direction; and (4) arguable error in enhancing sentence for importation. Other grounds were found not reasonably arguable and refused.
14 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. KO WAI SHING

Citation

[2020] HKCA 746
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC7/2020

Leave to appeal was refused as to conviction on Charge 1 because the Judge was entitled to infer D1 knowingly imported GBL given his admission to ordering and receiving the parcel and the implausibility of the cleaning‑agent explanation; leave to appeal was granted as to conviction on Charges 2 and 3 because there was a reasonably arguable ground that the Judge misdirected himself on possession in a joint‑occupancy context requiring something more than knowledge and acquiescence; leave to appeal against sentence was granted because sentencing guidelines for GBL are unsettled and the internati…
6 Aug 2019

香港特別行政區訴羅國華

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1858
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA115/2019

The court held the appellant did not take the reasonable steps that an experienced driver in his position would have taken and therefore failed to establish the s18(2) evidential defence; the prosecution proved that reasonable efforts would have revealed the concealed cigarettes, so conviction and sentence were upheld.
17 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. SZE KIN WANG

Citation

HKSAR v. SZE KIN WANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC369/2013

The court held that a 50% discount for the applicant’s guilty plea and evidence given at others' trials was appropriate; although the judge’s stated enhanced starting point was low and not transparently broken down, the resulting 9-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the importation of 2,660 grams of ketamine and the applicable sentencing principles, so leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
10 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. FERUZI MARIAM HARUNA

Citation

HKSAR v. FERUZI MARIAM HARUNA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC12/2014

The court refused leave to appeal out of time because the applicant provided no cogent explanation for the delay and, on the merits, the sentence was not manifestly excessive: the judge's starting point of 18.5 years was within discretion, a one-year uplift for importation was appropriate given the international element and quantity, and the one-third guilty plea discount produced a lawful 13-year term.
29 May 2012

HKSAR v. JARDIN RODELA MANINGAS

Citation

HKSAR v. JARDIN RODELA MANINGAS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC278/2011

The conviction was upheld because the circumstantial evidence permitted the reasonable inference that the applicant knew the shoes contained heroin; however, the sentencing judge erred by failing to give any credit for the applicant's tangible cooperation in an attempted controlled delivery, warranting reduction of the sentence from 20 to 18 years' imprisonment.
18 Nov 2009

HKSAR v. CHONG HEUNG SANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHONG HEUNG SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC221/2009

Given the substantial quantity and importation the offence was serious, but the sentencing judge had not sufficiently considered the defendant's assertions of habitual use and partial personal consumption nor other relevant factors listed in authorities; a starting point of 8 years (not 9) was appropriate and after the one‑third plea discount the sentence should be reduced to 5 years 4 months.
4 Jun 2009

HKSAR v. KAIRU JOHN MBUGUA

Citation

HKSAR v. KAIRU JOHN MBUGUA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC419/2008

The Court upheld the sentence because the sentencing judge correctly applied the Lau Tak-ming guideline range for 400-600g heroin, adopted a 15-year starting point, properly allowed a full one-third discount for the early guilty plea, and there were no cogent reasons to regard the resulting 10-year sentence as excessive or wrong in principle.