Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rebuttal of statutory presumption

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2023

HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT

Citation

[2023] HKCA 921
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC100/2022

The judge correctly applied the presumption under section 47 DDO, found the applicant had physical possession, the applicant failed to adduce sufficient evidence beyond a bald denial to rebut the presumption given inconsistent and evasive accounts and corroborating facts (signature, confirmation of delivery particulars and timing of telephone activation), and therefore the conviction was safe; leave to appeal was refused.
8 Feb 2018

LAU SIU HUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHOW SAI YIP AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3640/2015

The court accepted the respondents' credible evidence and documentary receipts showing they provided at least HK$300,000 and agreed set‑offs for unpaid occupation compensation, thereby rebutting the presumption under s.50(5); the Assignment was not a transaction at an undervalue nor an unfair preference and the trustees' summons must be dismissed.
18 Feb 2013

HKSAR v. UJAH, IKECHUKWU HILARY

Citation

HKSAR v. UJAH, IKECHUKWU HILARY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA625/2012

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's rejection of the appellant's innocent-loss explanation was supported by cogent reasons, the appellant failed to rebut the presumption under section 62(1) and the irresistible inference was that he re-entered Hong Kong unlawfully after 29 January 2009; absence of an image did not undermine that conclusion.
26 May 2006

KKM v. KWKS t WKS AND OTHERS

Citation

KKM v. KWKS t WKS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV9/2004

The Court of Appeal held the Wife failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s.17 MPPO that the transfers were made to defeat the Husband's claims; the trial judge did not err in proceeding without resolving police investigations into alleged falsified documents nor in declining to admit late valuation evidence; the fresh evidence sought on appeal did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall and/or was irrelevant; appeal dismissed and costs ordered nisi against the Wife.
10 Apr 1991

THE QUEEN v. LO SHING YUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LO SHING YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA5/1991

Where the statutory presumption under s.46 is only marginally raised, a tribunal of fact must carefully consider all material evidence (including the defendant's reaction and post‑caution statements) and give adequate reasons for finding the presumption unrebutted; failure to do so justifies quashing a trafficking conviction and substituting a conviction and sentence appropriate to possession.
25 Jul 1990

THE QUEEN v. MOK KOU CHAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MOK KOU CHAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC59/1990

The trial judge's rejection of the appellant's evidence was open on the record; even accepting some possibility of planting, the appellant failed to prove he did not possess the drugs and there was no basis for the appellate court to overturn the conviction.
7 Jun 1988

THE QUEEN v. YIP CHING YUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YIP CHING YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA153/1988

The magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's account; on review of the evidence (income, packaging, small net heroin quantity, long history of addiction and absence of evidence pointing to trafficking) the appellate court found on the balance of probabilities that the drugs were for personal use and substituted a conviction for simple possession under section 8(1), reducing the sentence to nine months' imprisonment concurrent with sentences being served.
23 Dec 1987

THE QUEEN v. LEE TSIU KIANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE TSIU KIANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA947/1987

Because the magistrate gave no adequate reasons for disbelieving the appellant's uncontradicted account and made no adverse finding on his income/expenditure, the statutory presumption of intent to traffic was rebutted; the s.7 conviction could not be maintained and was substituted with a conviction under s.8, and the sentence was adjusted to 10 months imprisonment based on quantity and antecedents.
15 Jul 1986

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWAN SHUI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWAN SHUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC178/1986

The presumption under section 47 arose because the applicant was in control of the car; the trial judge was entitled to find that the presumption was not rebutted in light of the totality of evidence including the applicant's conduct (flight), therefore conviction was upheld; the four year sentence was within established guidelines and the disparity with the co-defendant's three year sentence (reduced for guilty plea) did not warrant interference.
3 Sept 1982

PAULINE LILIAN DEARY AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

PAULINE LILIAN DEARY AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC289/1982

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge had not given adequate reasons for rejecting the defence and misdirected on material facts; on examination the seized documents and totality of evidence were more consistent with personal consumption than sales, so the s.46 presumption was rebutted on balance of probabilities; convictions for trafficking were unsafe and were quashed and substituted with convictions for simple possession; original sentences were set aside and fines imposed with rescission of the s.38 order.