Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inference of possession

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2023

HKSAR v. FUNG CHUN YIN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 83
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC290/2021

Given the drugs were openly placed in the driver’s door, large cash and further drugs were found between the front seats, and the quantity and packaging indicated trafficking rather than consumption, the judge was entitled to infer the applicant was a party to possession for the purpose of trafficking; the inference was a logical common‑sense conclusion supported by the proved facts and was not outweighed by contrary considerations.
23 Feb 2021

香港特別行政區訴鄭嘉雄

Citation

[2021] HKCA 192
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC124/2020

Leave to appeal was granted because the trial judge's adverse inference that the applicant possessed and intended to use the altered credit card was open to real doubt: the existence of another person with a key and residence at the premises (per PW3 DPC 9467) and the trial judge's failure to correctly state or consider that evidence meant the irresistible inference of exclusive possession and intent was not established, rendering the conviction potentially unsafe.
9 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. LAM CHIU MO

Citation

[2019] HKCA 911
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC206/2018

When the summing‑up is read as a whole the judge's language and examples did not render his directions unfair or unbalanced; the complained‑of passages were explanatory or harmless, the jury were properly directed on issues of assumption, inferences and right to silence, and there was no reasonably arguable basis to conclude the conviction was unsafe — leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
20 May 2005

HKSAR v. SIU MO NOR, ISIS

Citation

HKSAR v. SIU MO NOR, ISIS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC409/2004

Cohabitation, knowledge and presence in premises where illegal packaging occurred do not by themselves establish the custody and control element of possession; absent facts pointing to the applicant's exclusive or joint control, the inference of possession was unsafe, so conviction must be quashed.
24 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU BUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU BUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA246/2000

The magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's explanation, to conclude the only permissible inference from the evidence was that the appellant was in possession of the infringing discs, and accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal failed.
26 Nov 1968

LEUNG LIM v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEUNG LIM v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC655/1968

The magistrate properly drew permissible inferences from the similarity of the drugs to those in the pipe, the appellant's proximity to the drugs and his sole occupancy of the hut; those inferences established control and therefore possession, justifying the convictions, and the appeal is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. FUNG CHUN YIN

香港特別行政區 訴 鄭嘉雄

HKSAR v. LAM CHIU MO

HKSAR v. SIU MO NOR, ISIS

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU BUN

LEUNG LIM v. THE QUEEN

香港特別行政區訴鄭嘉雄