Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prima facie evidence

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA192/2019

The magistrate correctly refused to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to adduce any material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences prima facie; therefore there was 'good cause' under s.8(1B)(b) to refuse; Article 10 does not require a public hearing for such pre‑charge applications; ss.21 and 22 do not permit ordering production of CCTV prior to issuance of a summons; no actual or apparent bias was shown.
8 Aug 2018

HKSAR v. CHING WAI-LAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC236/2015

The court ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case that both sums ($3,164.10 found in the handbag and $11,000 found in the bedside drawer) were possessed as a result of or product of drug trafficking under s56(1)(a)/(b); the defendant subsequently conceded the $3,164.10, and on the defendant's evidence the court accepted on the balance of probabilities that part of the $11,000 was attributable to rent payments from a flatmate, affecting the question of forfeiture for that sum.
26 Aug 2015

ZHI CHARLES v. JANG SAM KI AND OTHERS

Citation

ZHI CHARLES v. JANG SAM KI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1151/2014

The amended statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of process as against D1-7 and D13 because the plaintiff did not obtain the prerequisite leave from the Cayman Islands Grand Court and has failed to file any evidence to establish a prima facie case or essential elements of the alleged wrongs (personal benefit by wrongdoer; control to stifle the claim); accordingly the ASOC is struck out as to those defendants and the proceedings are stayed pending leave from the Cayman Islands Grand Court.
17 May 2004

HKSAR v. GUO XIN ZHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. GUO XIN ZHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA117/2004

Section 24A of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance does not create a presumption of fact; it merely permits evidence that goods were imported from a place to be treated as prima facie evidence that they were manufactured there. A magistrate may not impose on defendants a statutory burden to rebut that evidence on the balance of probabilities; the prosecution retains the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The magistrate's possible misdirection on this point was material and required quashing of the convictions.
1 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. SIU PING FUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SIU PING FUK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC264/1999

On the depositions before the magistrate the only evidence against the 2nd accused was his own interview which repeatedly asserted lack of any intention to commit murder and explained conduct as a scheme to cheat for money; there was no independent evidence of agreement or any overt act inconsistent with innocence and the prosecution could not point to facts that excluded an innocent hypothesis; therefore there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to murder and the accused must be discharged under s.16(3) CPO.
24 Jul 1996

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TSANG WAI KEUNG

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TSANG WAI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA661/1996

Section 62A does not infringe Article 11(2)(g) because that Article protects against compulsion at trial and not investigatory demands; alternatively, disclosure of driver identity does not amount to compelled testimony or confession in the trial sense; the authorised person had sufficient grounds to suspect an offence; conviction and sentence were appropriate.
20 Sept 1989

SOMCHAI LIANGSIRIPRASERT v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ANOTHER

Citation

SOMCHAI LIANGSIRIPRASERT v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV73/1989

Appeal dismissed because the magistrate correctly applied the Extradition Act test: the unchallenged evidence established prima facie that the appellant's conduct, when treated as having effect in Hong Kong, constituted extradition crimes under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance; acts by US agents constituted acts in furtherance under the innocent‑agent/accessory doctrines; the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance has extraterritorial effect and is intra vires; the chain of custody evidence was sufficient for committal.
10 Jul 1989

RE NG PUI LIN

Citation

RE NG PUI LIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1796/1989

In non-contentious probate applications prima facie evidence suffices; the Registrar's requisitions demanding additional particulars and verification (dates, affirmation by kit fat wife, proof of life interest, marital status) were unnecessary and are set aside; the kit fat wife was to be deleted from the list of next of kin and Letters of Administration were ordered to issue on compliance with cosmetic amendments and renumbering.
12 Oct 1982

SZETO YIN-WAH v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SZETO YIN-WAH v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC402/1982

The Government Chemist's certificate under s.25 that the substance was 'Cannabis' is prima facie evidence that it was Cannabis as defined in s.2 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and was sufficient to support conviction absent an effective challenge by the defendant.
14 Aug 1981

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TANG PING-WING

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TANG PING-WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC411/1981

The magistrate erred in law by treating "wholly or mainly" as requiring predominant use throughout the entire day; evidence of a distinct and repeated pattern of evening activity, two controlled transactions with marked money, possession of fees and key gave rise to a prima facie case that the premises were used wholly or mainly for arranging prostitution and that the respondent was assisting in management; appeal allowed and case remitted to magistrate to resume hearing.