Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession for purpose of trafficking

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. CHAN CATHERINE

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CATHERINE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC191/2012

The court held that the admitted facts and the solicitor's concession established that the applicant presented herself at a departure point with the intent to export the drugs; possession for the purpose of trafficking was therefore established and the acts were more than merely preparatory so as to constitute an attempt; accordingly the guilty plea to trafficking stood and the sentence was not excessive.
11 Oct 2007

HKSAR v. CHAU HON KWONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU HON KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC453/2006

The conviction was quashed because the judge materially misdirected the jury by inviting them to convict on the basis of an alleged admission of importation—a separate and complete offence—when the prosecution had charged and proceeded on possession for the purpose of trafficking; the misdirection was such that the appeal could not be resolved under the proviso and a retrial was ordered.
14 Dec 2006

LEE CHUN TAT v. HKSAR

Citation

LEE CHUN TAT v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC52/2006

The majority held that the trial judge was entitled to find an irresistible inference of trafficking from the admitted circumstantial facts (public street possession, ten separately wrapped packets, total weight equivalent to about 25 days' supply, packaging suitable for sale and no evidence of personal use) and that absence of any explanation from the accused could be taken into account; therefore the conviction was not unsafe and leave to appeal was denied.
6 Sept 2006

HKSAR v. LEE CHUN TAT

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE CHUN TAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC271/2005

By a majority the Court of Appeal held that on these facts — public place, the applicant discarding ten separately wrapped packets, and the total quantity equivalent to many days' supply — a jury/tribunal properly could infer trafficking; absence of evidence of addiction did not preclude that inference and the applicant's silence was a relevant circumstance in evaluating the prosecution case. Accordingly the application for leave was dismissed and the conviction for trafficking upheld.
25 May 2000

HKSAR v. LAU KWOK CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU KWOK CHING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC489/1999

Appeal allowed in part because the sentencing judge failed to give an adequate discount for the guilty pleas; substituted sentences reduce the individual terms to reflect a 20% reduction for plea on the principal counts while upholding the judge's classification of the offences as serious and the propriety of consecutive sentences for separate offences.
16 May 1997

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YE WING LEUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YE WING LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR2/1997

Storing a substance which the defendant believed to be a dangerous drug preparatory to delivery is within the scope of an act preparatory to trafficking under s.4(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance; conviction under s.4(1)(c) was therefore valid and the probation order was inadequate and properly replaced by a custodial sentence of 3.5 years.
16 May 1997

THE QUEEN v. YE WING LEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YE WING LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC159/1997

Storing substances believed to be dangerous drugs preparatory to delivering them is an act preparatory to trafficking within s.4(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance; the conviction was therefore upheld and the original probation order was quashed as manifestly inadequate, substituted with imprisonment for 3.5 years.
1 May 1997

R. v. CHAN KA MING

Citation

R. v. CHAN KA MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC66/1997

Although the Deputy Judge applied later guidelines, the Court found the applicant suffered prejudice from delay and absconsion and that it would be unduly severe to deprive him of the guilty plea discount; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part and the sentence reduced by one year to 2 years 8 months imprisonment.
12 Feb 1997

R. v. YU WING KEUNG

Citation

R. v. YU WING KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC454/1996

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the gross delay and did not demonstrate a strong prima facie case; cross-examination on prior convictions was properly allowed given the applicant's allegation that the drugs were planted.
31 May 1995

R. v. CHAN HON KAM

Citation

R. v. CHAN HON KAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC485/1994

The Court held that the judge's reasons for disbelieving the applicant (financial capacity and variation in packet weight/purity) were unsound or neutral and that the applicant's account was not inherently improbable; therefore the verdicts of possession for the purpose of trafficking were unsafe and were set aside and substituted with guilty verdicts for simple possession, with consequential alteration of sentences.