Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption of intent

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 1995

THE QUEEN v. FUNG MUI-LEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. FUNG MUI-LEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC22/1995

Appeal allowed because the trial judge materially misdirected the law by relying on a common‑law presumption of intent contrary to s.65A and by placing the legal burden on the defendant to prove lack of intent/automatism on the balance of probabilities; those errors rendered the evaluation of the defence improper and the convictions and sentences unsafe and therefore must be set aside.
30 Jun 1993

THE QUEEN v. WONG YIN CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG YIN CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA235/1993

Magistrate's rejection of the appellants' account of their state of mind when approaching the dock justified application of the statutory presumption under s35A(2)(c); the prosecution proved the requisite intent beyond reasonable doubt so convictions stand; but because mens rea arose at the last minute and appellants were first offenders, custodial sentences were suspended for two years.
11 Jun 1993

THE QUEEN v. FONG CHI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. FONG CHI MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA313/1993

Although the magistrate made two technical errors in phrasing (stating there was no evidence suggesting absence of intent and describing the back door as seen open), the trial findings show she accepted prosecution evidence and implicitly rejected the appellants' explanations; the primary evidence was overwhelming and supported an inference that goods were loaded from inside the premises to evade restriction, therefore the appeals were dismissed and the sentence affirmed.
6 Apr 1993

WONG HIU CHOR AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG HIU CHOR AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA227/1992

Convictions were unsafe because the magistrate did not indicate whether she relied on the s.35A presumption or what standard she applied and the acquittal of D3 combined with the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to the appellants' intent; accordingly the convictions were quashed and sentences set aside.
2 Apr 1993

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG CHU TIM

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG CHU TIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA484/1992

The conviction was unsafe and must be quashed because the magistrate applied the wrong standard (balance of probabilities) to the rebuttal of a presumption that imposes only an evidential burden; although the magistrate purported to rely alternatively on an inference of intent, that finding could have been influenced by the erroneous standard and therefore cannot be regarded as safe.
30 Dec 1982

WONG CHI-KWOK v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG CHI-KWOK v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC545/1982

The section 76A offence requires proof of custody or possession and that the articles are fit for forgery; the statutory presumption that they were intended for that use is properly construed objectively from surrounding circumstances and, if raised, shifts the evidential burden to the accused to show on the probabilities lack of intent or lack of awareness of intent by others. The judge's directions were sufficient and the convictions are safe, but the sentencing judge erred in treating the appellant as a principal; sentences reduced accordingly.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE QUEEN v. FUNG MUI-LEE

THE QUEEN v. WONG YIN CHUNG AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. FONG CHI MAN AND OTHERS

WONG HIU CHOR AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG CHU TIM

WONG CHI-KWOK v. THE QUEEN