Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption of knowledge

Legal area

Court

25 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. HO PING FAI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1827
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC191/2020

Because the summary of facts was silent on the defendant's knowledge, the defendant consistently maintained lack of knowledge to his lawyers, there was a real possibility his claim may be true, and given the seriousness of the offence and potential sentence, the interests of justice required allowing the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea so the issue of knowledge can be decided by a jury.
3 Jul 2007

CHIU WING NAM, DICK v. HKSAR

Citation

CHIU WING NAM, DICK v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC10/2006

Because s.47(1) and (2) are disproportionate if read as imposing persuasive burdens, they must be read as creating only an evidential onus; the trial judge's directions imposing a persuasive burden on the appellant therefore caused substantial and grave injustice, warranting quashing of the conviction and ordering a retrial.
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.
17 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. Lam Wai Lun

Citation

HKSAR v. Lam Wai Lun
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC11/1998

The Court held the summing-up was not fundamentally unbalanced, the judge correctly identified knowledge as the critical issue, and the conviction was safe; the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
30 May 1995

R. v. TSOI WAI MING

Citation

R. v. TSOI WAI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC33/1995

The judge materially misdirected the jury by treating mere knowledge that a bag was in a vehicle as attracting the statutory presumption of knowledge; that presumption only follows from actual physical possession (carrying) of the bag. The misdirection was material and the proviso could not be applied because it was not inevitable that a properly directed jury would have convicted; therefore the heroin trafficking conviction must be quashed and a retrial ordered.
22 Jul 1994

TAM CHUN FAI v. R.

Citation

TAM CHUN FAI v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC663/1993

The direction under s47(2) was inappropriate on the evidence but not a material irregularity; however a passage in the summing up denying the likelihood of police impropriety was so unbalanced and prejudicial that it deprived the appellant of a fair trial, warranting quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.
29 Dec 1993

R. v. TSUI TAT KUEN

Citation

R. v. TSUI TAT KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA780/1993

Convictions quashed because the agreed evidence and exhibits did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the documents were false or that he must have known the true contents of the goods; it would be unjust to impose absolute liability and imprisonment on him in these circumstances when the agreed exporter and director were acquitted; ambiguous and improperly framed agreed statements lack sufficient evidential value.
10 Aug 1992

The Queen v. TRAN VIET VAN

Citation

The Queen v. TRAN VIET VAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC12/1992

Although s.47(2) is procedurally framed and prospective to trials, it imposes a new and prejudicial evidential burden on facts predating its enactment; absent an express legislative statement that it applies to pre-enactment events the presumption cannot be relied on by the Crown in prosecutions for offences committed before the amendment.
31 Oct 1986

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAM KWING CHI

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAM KWING CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1008/1986

The magistrate erred in concluding there was no case to answer because the presumption in section 47(3) applies where the circumstances support an inference of possession and thus knowledge; evidence of paraphernalia, prepared opium, and admissions justified drawing the inference; accordingly the answers to the magistrate's questions are NO and the matter is remitted to the magistrate to continue the hearing.
15 Aug 1986

THE QUEEN v. YU KWOK HING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YU KWOK HING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC153/1986

Although the trial judge's directions on possession and the statutory presumptions were verbose and contained deficiencies and the defence could have been presented in greater detail, the summing up as a whole did not materially inhibit the jury from properly evaluating the defence or the issues and did not result in a miscarriage of justice; therefore leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.