Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumptions of possession

Legal area

Court

21 May 2004

HKSAR v. CHOU SHIH BIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOU SHIH BIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA202/2004

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's rejection of the appellant's account and the inferences drawn were within the range of reasonable evaluations of credibility and fact; no legal error or irrationality was shown, the appellant failed to establish a lurking doubt sufficient to disturb the conviction, and the section 24 presumption was not determinative on this appeal.
4 Jun 1992

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG HING YU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG HING YU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC320/1991

The judge did not err in refusing to discharge the jury because the corrective redirection was given in isolation during their deliberations, the jury's question demonstrated they could understand the law, and there was no substantial risk of unfairness; appellate interference is only warranted where the judge's discretion was plainly misapplied.
31 Jan 1992

R. v. CIU CHI-KWONG

Citation

R. v. CIU CHI-KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC420/1991

The convictions were quashed because they were obtained by reliance on statutory evidential/procedural presumptions in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance which had been repealed by the Bill of Rights Ordinance effective 8 June 1991; reliance on those now-invalid presumptions rendered the convictions unsafe because it could not be shown the verdicts would have been the same under the correct burden and standard of proof.
21 Apr 1989

THE QUEEN v. LI WING HO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LI WING HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC565/1988

The trial judge was entitled to accept the police evidence, reject the applicant's account and find the presumptions not rebutted; on the evidence the convictions were justified and leave to appeal was refused.
23 Jun 1988

THE QUEEN v. KOO FU HOI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KOO FU HOI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC542/1987

Koo and Tsang's convictions were upheld because they failed to rebut the evidential presumption arising from possession of keys; Yan's conviction for trafficking was quashed because the evidence allowed an alternative reasonable inference (that he was a user seeking to inject himself) and did not satisfactorily establish control or joint possession for trafficking.
9 Sept 1987

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KAM TAK AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KAM TAK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC204/1987

The Court held the convictions were unsafe: (1) the palm-print expert evidence was admissible but was inadequately presented (characteristics not pointed out to the jury) making it of questionable weight; (2) the trial judge misdirected the jury on the presumption of possession in respect of Count 1 and thereby confused the facts about actual possession; (3) several items relied upon as potential corroboration were only incriminating if the co-accused's testimony was accepted and thus could not independently corroborate; taken together these defects rendered both convictions unsafe, so convic…
26 May 1987

THE QUEEN v. NG HANG YEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG HANG YEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC6/1987

The trial judge erred in refusing the appellant permission to cross-examine the co-accused on previous convictions because the co-accused had given evidence 'against' the appellant; however, on the evidence as a whole the conviction was safe and the refusal did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, so the appeal is dismissed and convictions are upheld.
23 Jun 1983

THE QUEEN v. LAU SOU-WAH

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU SOU-WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1174/1982

The judge's detailed analysis of the defendant's failure to name NG Fei after arrest amounted to an improper invitation to draw an adverse inference from silence in breach of the rule in Reg v Gilbert; however, because the overall evidence against the applicant was strong and the jury acquitted on the manufacturing count, the Court applied the proviso and refused the appeal, affirming the convictions for possession for trafficking and simple possession.
23 Mar 1982

WAI MAN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WAI MAN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC705/1981

Majority held that statutory presumptions in ss46 and 47 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, once the appellant's possession of keys was proved beyond reasonable doubt, created a presumptive possession (including knowledge and control) which the appellant failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; the misdirection about eating habits was not material and the proviso allows affirmation of the conviction. Therefore conviction for possession for purpose of trafficking is upheld. One judge dissented on materiality of the misdirection and would have quashed the conviction.
17 Jan 1980

LO KWONG-HING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LO KWONG-HING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC593/1979

The facts (occupancy of Room A, presence of two key bunches affording control of flat and rooms, drugs and traces in the rooms, and bags thrown from Room A) were sufficient to raise the s.47 presumption; the appellants failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities because the judge disbelieved their account; therefore convictions were safe and the appeals against conviction must be refused.