Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and joint possession

Legal area

Court

1 Mar 2023

香港特別行政區訴傅錦玲

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 576
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA202/2022

The conviction was upheld because the combination of direct and strong environmental circumstantial evidence (appellant's identity card and private DVD found in the flat, observed movement from the flat's direction, and the recovered 800 cigarettes of the same brand) permitted a reasonable inference of joint possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt; the appellate court must defer to the trial judge's credibility findings and therefore dismissed the appeal.
26 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. ROJAS MONTOYA JUAN PABLO

Citation

[2022] HKCA 107
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC78/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable: the evidence linked him to the flat and drugs, the judge's directions on possession and joint possession were adequate, counsel's conduct was a competent tactical choice not flagrant incompetence, there was no sufficient basis to leave an alternative s37 verdict, prior convictions negated any entitlement to a good character direction, and alleged challenges to CCTV or admissions were not supported by instruction or evidence.
18 Oct 2002

HKSAR v. LI YIM MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LI YIM MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC546/2001

On the undisputed evidence — admissions about operation of the flat, records of transactions, drug‑trafficking paraphernalia, cash sums, and the applicant's knowledge of and conduct in relation to the backpack and packets of 'ice' — there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury; the trial judge correctly ruled there was a case to answer and the jury were entitled to convict; the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
8 Apr 1968

TSUI SHEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TSUI SHEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC705/1967

The convictions were upheld because the Crown led ample evidence of manufacture and possession (physical traces, keys, contemporaneous manufacture) and no credible evidence or explanation was put forward to rebut the statutory presumption of guilty knowledge; any defects in jury directions or procedural errors were held to be immaterial and did not cause a miscarriage of justice, so the proviso in Section 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code was applied to dismiss the applications for leave to appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 傅錦玲

HKSAR v. ROJAS MONTOYA JUAN PABLO

HKSAR v. LI YIM MING

TSUI SHEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

香港特別行政區訴傅錦玲