Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession vs trafficking

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2023

HKSAR v. DINH KA YAN, GIGI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1100
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC122/2021

The Court held the judge lawfully formed her own view of the facts to the criminal standard where the jury's verdict admitted more than one interpretation, properly rejected the appellant's self-consumption case on the evidence, applied sentencing guidelines to the proven quantity and legitimately limited the self-consumption discount; accordingly the 8 year sentence and forfeiture were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
19 Jan 2023

HKSAR v. CHOI KWOK FAI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 101
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC109/2022

The judge acted within lawful discretion in ordering detention in a DATC because the applicant was drug dependent, suitable for DATC treatment, and the order was made in his best interests and the public interest under Cap 244 s4; the prior period in custody did not render the DATC order impermissible; therefore the applicant's ground of appeal was not reasonably arguable and leave is refused.
21 May 2019

香港特別行政區訴陳志德

Citation

[2019] HKCA 524
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC96/2017

The trial judge materially misdirected the jury on the legal significance of flight and failed to give adequate and non-confusing directions about taking drugs out to exchange and about the effect of a 4-3 split; coupled with insufficiency of evidence to infer trafficking from possession of 8.67g in the street, the trafficking conviction was unsafe and was quashed and substituted with a conviction for possession, with a fine imposed; no retrial was ordered because evidence supporting trafficking was weak and the applicant had already served an equivalent lengthy period in custody.
22 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. LO SHING LOK

Citation

HKSAR v. LO SHING LOK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC5/2015

The conviction was quashed because the trial judge repeatedly mischaracterised and denigrated the defence in his summing-up, thereby presenting an unfair and unbalanced account to the jury that could have misled them; although the alternative verdict direction was unnecessary it caused no prejudice; in the interests of justice a retrial before a different judge was ordered.
14 Oct 2010

HKSAR v. YAU KA MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YAU KA MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC322/2009

The Court treated the notice of abandonment as a nullity because, on the evidence, the applicant did not appreciate its legal effect and immediately sought legal aid; however, on the merits the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the conviction was supported by admissible evidence (including a voluntary admission and indicia of trafficking) and allegations of planting or police misconduct were unsupported and insufficient to overturn the conviction.
29 Apr 2009

HKSAR v. MARIA CORNELIA DUVENHAGE

Citation

HKSAR v. MARIA CORNELIA DUVENHAGE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC11/2009

The trial judge erred by treating the absence of knowledge as a legal burden on the appellant to prove on the balance of probabilities; this reversed the proper onus and was a fundamental error rendering the conviction unsafe, necessitating quashing of the trafficking conviction and ordering a retrial.
15 Sept 2006

HKSAR v. JARHIA KULDEEP SINGH

Citation

HKSAR v. JARHIA KULDEEP SINGH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC96/2006

The Court quashed the trafficking conviction and substituted a conviction for simple possession. Applying Mok Cho-tik, the Court adopted a starting point of 15 months, added 12 months for latent risk (total 27 months), then reduced the sentence by one-third to reflect the appellant's firm intention to plead guilty, resulting in an 18-month imprisonment sentence; the appellant was unsuitable for DATC admission on the facts.
6 Sept 2006

HKSAR v. JARHIA KULDEEP SINGH

Citation

HKSAR v. JARHIA KULDEEP SINGH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC96/2006

The judge erred by treating the appellant's silence as an 'unlikely reaction' and thereby impermissibly using silence against him; accordingly the trafficking conviction was quashed and substituted with a conviction for possession, and a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report was ordered before sentencing pursuant to section 54A Cap.134.
7 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. BULALONG AUREA P.

Citation

HKSAR v. BULALONG AUREA P.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC80/1999

Although acquittal on count 1 and conviction on count 2 were superficially inconsistent, the conviction was supported by independent evidence from the Exhibits Officer and the jury was properly directed to evaluate witnesses separately; the inconsistency did not reach the threshold of irrationality required for appellate interference, so the conviction stands.
11 Sept 1998

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUEN HO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUEN HO
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC12/1998

Leave to appeal was granted because it was at least reasonably arguable that the trial judge's misdirection about presumptions could have caused substantial and grave injustice and that conviction for trafficking was not inevitably established by the jury's finding on possession, so the proviso could not be assumed to cure the error.