Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of poisons

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. FARHAN ASLAM

Citation

[2022] HKCA 408
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC125/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court concluded the District Court judge did not err in law or principle: he properly applied the combined approach and cross‑checking tests to determine a just starting point, fairly adjusted for multiple drugs and aggravating factors, gave full guilty plea credit, and reasonably ordered the immigration sentence to run consecutively; the grounds were not reasonably arguable.
13 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. CHIN CHIN FAI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 83
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC70/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge properly applied sentencing principles: the theft of the LGV materially increased culpability beyond the attempted theft, the driving offences added separate public safety culpability and justified partial consecutive sentencing, and the aggregate 46 months was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the offending and antecedents.
19 Aug 2015

香港特別行政區訴方耀

Citation

香港特別行政區訴方耀
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA671/2014

The trial judge did not err in law or principle: the relevant offences are not strict liability requiring no mental element, the judge properly inferred from the totality of connected evidence that the appellant knew the kind of medicines he possessed and sold, there was no evidential basis to trigger the common law defence of honest and reasonable belief, and therefore the convictions were safe and must be upheld.
1 Apr 2015

HKSAR v. LAI KWAI PO

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KWAI PO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC313/2014

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against conviction on grounds 1–3 as reasonably arguable (the sufficiency of the inference of trafficking, the use of the lie without independent evidence, and the judge's treatment of addiction/evidence on ketamine use) and refused leave on ground 4 and refused leave to appeal sentence because no error was shown in the trial judge's exercise of sentencing discretion.
12 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. KAWELMACHER JIMMY LEE

Citation

HKSAR v. KAWELMACHER JIMMY LEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC338/2012

The Court allowed the appeal in part because trial counsel gave incorrect legal advice and failed to advance available mitigation (self-consumption) causing an unfair trial and loss of the full one-third guilty-plea discount; the proper starting point remained 6 years for 8.99g ICE, but the applicant is entitled to the full one-third discount, producing a sentence of 4 years 4 months on Charge 2; unsupported assertions of self-consumption were not accepted without evidence.
12 Oct 2005

HKSAR v. LEE YIN SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE YIN SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA868/2005

The trial magistrate's credibility findings in favour of the prosecution were accepted; the undercover sale evidence and the link between the stockroom and appellant established the elements of each offence beyond reasonable doubt, so the Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions.
13 Jun 2003

HKSAR v. CHUNG KING KUI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG KING KUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA448/2003

The appeal was allowed because the magistrate erred in finding the presumption of possession under s24 applied to the appellant who had given credible evidence she had retired and was not carrying on the business so the presumption did not arise or was rebutted; and s33(2) could not be used to attribute an employee's knowledge to the appellant because that subsection applies to proceedings for or in connection with sale/exposure for sale or supply, not a pure possession charge under s23(1). Consequently the conviction could not be sustained.
27 Oct 1998

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUNG LEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUNG LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC143/1998

The court held that the prosecution failed to link the $8 million in assorted bank accounts to drug trafficking so the bank books had no probative value under the test in R v Grant; the judge erred in relying on those accounts and in failing to alert defence or properly investigate crucial matters (finances and round-number quantities) before drawing adverse inferences, rendering the trafficking conviction unsafe; accordingly the trafficking conviction was quashed and, applying section 83A, substituted with a conviction for possession of the dangerous drugs and a fine, while the conviction fo…
23 Apr 1987

THE QUEEN v. TANG SAU CHING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TANG SAU CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA273/1987

The magistrate did not err in principle in imposing immediate custody for managing an unregistered clinic given the risk to the public and the appellant's prior conviction; however the fines for the possession charges were manifestly excessive and were reduced from $2,500 to $1,000 each.
1 Nov 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHIU TAI-HUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHIU TAI-HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA630/1985

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant caused the importation within the recognised concept of 'cause' (the importation was done on his express authority), Section 34 permits proof of the prohibited act without separate proof of omission from the manifest and places the evidential burden on the defendant, and the magistrate permissibly rejected the appellant's denial and inferred he knew the pills contained a Part I poison, therefore convictions on both charges were upheld.