Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of explosives

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 320
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The court found PW22 possessed the requisite expertise as a bomb disposal officer with relevant training and experience to give opinion evidence on the practical function and application of explosives; that this expertise falls within a recognised reliable body of knowledge and his opinions were relevant and likely to assist the court on whether the substances were capable of producing the pyrotechnic effects alleged (relevant to the conspiracy and possession counts); the 2nd defendant's objection was therefore overruled.
8 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 317
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The court held that the acquittal on the previous Count 5 (attempt to make TATP) does not bar the prosecution from proceeding with the current possession charge or from adducing evidence that the specified items were capable of making explosives (including TATP); however the prosecution may not advance the case to the jury that the defendant attempted to make TATP on 14 June 2015 because he has been acquitted of that offence.
24 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 313
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

Having weighed the nature and changed state of the prosecution case, the evidence as to the dangerousness of the alleged materials, the defendants' personal backgrounds and prior convictions, the lengthy pre-trial custody and the defendants' agreement to stringent undertakings (notably a categorical prohibition on inquiring into or disseminating information about making or using explosives) and usual bail conditions, the court concluded that on balance bail should be granted to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants subject to specified conditions.
7 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 306
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

Bail was refused because, despite lengthy pre-trial custody and evidence of good character, the seriousness of the allegations and the state and strength of the prosecution evidence created an unacceptable risk that the defendant would not attend court if released even under stringent conditions.
30 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. KWAI PING HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAI PING HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC219/2005

Verdicts were upheld because there was a rational factual basis for differing findings: jury could be sure D2 knew of firearms (visible; admissions) but not sure he knew of concealed grenades; identification and supporting forensic evidence made D1's conviction for using a firearm a matter for the jury and not susceptible to no-case challenge; separate counts under Cap.238 and Cap.200 were lawfully open because possession of different items can constitute separate acts and s.58 does not render the indictment duplicitous; sentencing on Counts 4 and 5 should not have been made partially consecu…
30 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. KWAI PING HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAI PING HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC73/2005

The Court held that (1) the jury could properly infer knowledge of firearms but not of concealed grenades, so the firearms conviction and explosives acquittal were not inconsistent and no appellate interference was warranted; (2) separate counts under Cap.238 and Cap.200 were permissible because possession of distinct items in the suitcase constituted separate acts of possession and did not breach s.58 Cap.200; (3) the sentencing judge erred in principle by making sentences on counts arising from the same facts partially consecutive so as to exceed the statutory maximum, and the Court correct…
29 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUK FAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUK FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC141/1998

Even without relying on the statutory presumption in section 55(2), the disclosed documentary and notified evidence, taken as a whole, would permit a reasonable jury to infer the applicant's knowledge of the contents of the boxes; therefore there is a prima facie case and the section 16 discharge application must be dismissed. The court declined to decide the constitutionality of section 55(2) as the issue was unnecessary to the decision and better determined at trial with full evidence.
1 Feb 1990

THE QUEEN v. POON PING-KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. POON PING-KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC426/1989

The Court held the trial judge did not err in principle or in applying mitigation and the totality principle and that the 16-year overall sentence was appropriate given the seriousness, protracted pattern and amount involved; leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
13 Jan 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHAK SHUI CHUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAK SHUI CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC331/1988

Although ordinarily injuries sustained by an offender during the commission of a crime do not lessen punishment, the amputation of both arms in this case constituted an exceptional and very serious consequence that warranted mitigation; therefore the Court reduced the sentence on the explosives count from seven to five years while leaving the concurrent firearms sentence unchanged.
16 Oct 1987

THE QUEEN v. SO LAW CHUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SO LAW CHUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC473/1987

Although possession of large quantities of explosives is inherently serious, on the specific facts (intended use for fishing, explosives not armed, appellant's good character and family responsibilities, and comparative practice under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance) the two year custodial sentence was excessive; the appropriate sentence was one year imprisonment suspended for one year, and the Court of Appeal therefore set aside the two year sentence and substituted the suspended one year sentence.