Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and custody

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 2023

HKSAR v. DAR ASIM TAHIR

Citation

[2023] HKCA 754
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC197/2021

Leave to appeal was granted only on specific, reasonably arguable points: D2 was granted leave limited to whether the judge should have directed the jury about D1's evidence alleging D2's prior unrelated drug trafficking; D3 was granted leave to appeal her conviction on grounds concerning failure to give a Li Jin direction (grounds 1 and 2) and granted leave to appeal sentence on whether her limited role was properly taken into account. All other grounds advanced by both applicants were refused. Appeal aid certificates were granted and the transcript of D1's evidence was ordered included in t…
10 Sept 2018

HKSAR v. LEGASPI STEPHANIE JOY

Citation

[2018] HKCA 594
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC241/2017

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused because the grounds were fact‑based and not reasonably arguable; the trial judge was entitled to find the applicant's admissions voluntary, to reject the defence evidence about the boyfriend and the artistic value of images, and to impose the sentences given the sophistication of the operation and applicable sentencing factors.
16 Nov 2009

HKSAR v. YEUNG MING CHU

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG MING CHU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA392/2009

The appellate court allowed the appeal because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had custody or control of the goods, knew they were counterfeit or intended possession for sale; the primary facts did not lead to the only irresistible inference of guilt and the magistrate erred in excluding other reasonable explanations.
26 Sept 2008

HKSAR v. MOHAMMED SALEEM

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMMED SALEEM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC323/2007

The conviction for trafficking was quashed because the prosecution did not prove the requisite physical custody or control of the drugs at the time of arrest; the proper offence supported by the evidence was attempting to traffic, and accordingly a retrial was ordered with substitution of a count of attempting to traffic pursuant to section 83E Criminal Procedure Ordinance; the juror's post‑verdict communication was inadmissible and did not constitute a material irregularity sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. DAR ASIM TAHIR

HKSAR v. LEGASPI STEPHANIE JOY

HKSAR v. YEUNG MING CHU

HKSAR v. MOHAMMED SALEEM