Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession for purpose of trade

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2005

HKSAR v. LI KWOK CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. LI KWOK CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1132/2005

The appeal was dismissed because the learned magistrate did not err in principle in adopting a 12-month starting point for possession of 1,037 infringing CDs sold from a ground-floor shop; the appellant's assertions (forged transfer, assurance against imprisonment, family hardship) did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting reduction of an immediate custodial sentence.
26 Sept 2005

HKSAR v. NGAI LAI LING

Citation

HKSAR v. NGAI LAI LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA499/2005

Appeal dismissed because the prosecution proved that the discs produced at trial were the same as those seized by demonstrating a continuous exercise by the seizing officer and sufficiently distinctive sealing, and there was no non-disclosure or misconduct sufficient to prejudice the defence; the officer's stated uncertainty did not undermine the totality of evidence establishing identity and continuity.
12 Nov 2004

HKSAR v. MAN KA KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. MAN KA KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA938/2004

The magistrate's sentencing starting point and resulting total sentence of eight months' imprisonment was appropriate given the large quantity of infringing copies and the appellant's status as a proprietor; no exceptional circumstances existed to justify a non‑custodial sentence; appeal dismissed.
16 Apr 2004

HKSAR v. YUEN MAN TUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YUEN MAN TUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC442/2003

The trial judge erred in treating the applicant's partly exculpatory statement as inadmissible as to truth and in finding that anyone entering Place A must necessarily have known the contents of Place B; however, on the admitted facts the Court of Appeal concluded that, applying the proviso to s.83 CPO, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for possession for the purpose of trade (s.118(1)(d)) for 150 CD-ROMs but insufficient evidence to support convictions for making for sale or hire (s.118(1)(a)) and possession of manufacturing equipment (s.118(8)), so convictions for char…
28 Jan 2004

HKSAR v. YE HAI YAN

Citation

HKSAR v. YE HAI YAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA911/2003

The appeal was allowed in part because, applying established sentencing principles (including deterrence, mitigation for early guilty plea and personal circumstances) and having regard to the need for consistency with sentences imposed on co-defendants, the original concurrent sentences of 14 months were excessive and should be reduced to concurrent terms of nine months imprisonment.
2 May 2003

HKSAR v. HO CHI SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. HO CHI SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA199/2003

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate, having seen and heard the witnesses, reasonably preferred the evidence of the Customs officers over the defence witnesses, and her use of rhetorical questions to explain her reasoning did not make her findings unfair; the single reasonable inference from the appellant's conduct and words supported conviction under the Copyright Ordinance.
3 Oct 2002

HKSAR v. CHAN SUM FUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SUM FUK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC228/2002

Given the open presence of production equipment, large numbers of discs and blank media, the sustained presence of the 2nd applicant in the flat, rejection of exculpatory evidence and failure to give an acceptable explanation, the only reasonable inference was that she participated in production and possession; convictions and the total sentence of 2 years 6 months were upheld as not manifestly excessive.
1 Aug 2002

HKSAR v. LEE SIU WO

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE SIU WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA632/2002

Because the magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for her verdict, the conviction was unsafe; the appeal is allowed, the convictions quashed and a retrial ordered despite the appellant's objection given the strength of the prosecution evidence.
10 Jul 2002

HKSAR v. TONG KA CHEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. TONG KA CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA215/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, relied on an unchallenged record of interview confirming the appellant's ownership and other evidence of infringement, and there were no grounds shown to interfere with the convictions.
24 May 2002

HKSAR v. LEE CHI KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA284/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the eight month sentence was within the proper sentencing range for the offence and the asserted humanitarian grounds were not exceptional enough to warrant further reduction.