Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Insufficiency of evidence

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. MONTANO ALMA PUTONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1180
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC137/2023

The leave applications were refused because the jury's guilty verdicts were supported by a strong circumstantial case—coordinated WhatsApp communications, identification evidence, controlled delivery and corresponding phone records—such that an irresistible inference of knowledge was open; the judge properly directed the jury on the use of the 2nd applicant's prior convictions and the complaints about counsel and insufficiency of evidence lacked merit.
28 Aug 2024

香港特別行政區訴劉澍財

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA480/2023

The court refused the application for a certificate because the points raised were case‑specific factual disputes already addressed by the court and did not involve a question of law of great and general importance nor demonstrate substantial and grave injustice as required by s32(2) Cap.484.
23 Oct 2018

香港特別行政區訴林勤

Citation

[2018] HKCA 737
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC402/2017

The Court held the trial judge erred by failing to consider defence documentary and messaging evidence of a bank loan approval and by rejecting the loan evidence summarily; because the prosecution had no opportunity at trial to test the late evidence and the conviction was therefore unsafe, the appeal succeeded, conviction was quashed and the case remitted for retrial so prosecution can investigate and, if appropriate, rebut the defence assertions.
9 Jan 2013

HKSAR v. FUNG KA FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG KA FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC308/2011

The court concluded the appellant was not prevented from calling the co-accused based on contemporaneous signed instructions and affirmations from counsel and the solicitor's clerk; further, the circumstantial evidence (telephone communications, knowledge of site security, timing of events, and direction of vehicles) was sufficient to establish the appellant's participation in the conspiracy to rob, so the appeal against conviction failed.
10 Aug 2012

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SZE WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SZE WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC301/2009

Leave to appeal against conviction refused because admissible evidence (account signatory status, merchant agreements, signed cheques, deposit slips, letters and other items found in safes) sufficiently established the applicant's managerial involvement in S3; appeal against sentence allowed in part because the aggregate sentence of 6.5 years was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to reflect proportionality while recognising that the dealing with proceeds offences added culpability given the applicant's ownership and hands-on role.
25 Apr 2012

HKSAR v. NG WAH PAK

Citation

HKSAR v. NG WAH PAK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA106/2012

The conviction was upheld because, on the admitted possession and the way the drugs were packaged and quantified, it was open to the Magistrate to draw an irresistible inference that a substantial part of the drugs were held for trafficking; the sentence derived from a lawful starting point and discounts was not interfered with.
29 Sept 2003

HKSAR v. LI HO FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LI HO FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC63/2003

The applicant's voluntary admission that the computer was his coupled with the qualifying denial of family involvement, the presence of the incriminating image file on that computer when opened in his presence, and corroborative telephone records permitted an irresistible inference that he generated/stored the image file and was a knowing participant in the blackmail scheme; convictions were therefore safe.
9 Feb 1993

CHAN KIN-CHIM and Another v. R.

Citation

CHAN KIN-CHIM and Another v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC138/1992

The Court held the evidence did not exclude the inference of possession for personal consumption and was insufficient to prove trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; convictions on the trafficking charge were quashed, the 2nd applicant's conviction was substituted with simple possession, and the 1st applicant was discharged because the trial judge had acquitted him on possession of paraphernalia severing the necessary nexus.
11 Oct 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHONG HUNG CHAO (A2) AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHONG HUNG CHAO (A2) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA659/1988

The uncontradicted undercover evidence of lewd conduct and payments on 28 December established that the premises were used mainly by women for prostitution under s.117; marked money found in the cashier's drawer and the roles of the appellants in escorting customers and collecting fees supported a finding that they had knowledge of the illicit business, therefore the magistrate's convictions were upheld.