Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recent possession

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2017

香港特別行政區訴林成

Citation

香港特別行政區訴林成
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA512/2016

The court accepted the complainant's evidence and the surrounding factual matrix (tracking of the phone, calls demanding payment, meeting and bargaining, receipt of marked notes) as satisfying the elements of extortion; the appellant's contradictory account was rejected and there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility or in imposing a six‑month sentence, so the conviction and sentence were upheld.
3 Oct 2016

HKSAR v. FAN CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. FAN CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC343/2015

The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused because the non‑seizure of CCTV did not show police impropriety or inevitable prejudice, the judge expressly considered the absence of the footage and other missing evidence, and the conviction was properly founded on credibility findings and a permissible inference of guilty knowledge under recent possession given possession of the stolen motorcycle, removal of an identifying tail box, modification of the ignition and a false explanation of acquisition.
24 Apr 2012

HKSAR v. ASIM NADEEM

Citation

HKSAR v. ASIM NADEEM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA686/2011

Given the proximity in time between the robbery and the discovery of the victim's phone in the appellant's possession, the magistrate was entitled to draw the inference of guilt from recent possession and to convict of robbery despite failures of identification and the appellant's admission regarding the phone; the appellate court will not disturb such findings absent clear error.
24 Oct 2011

YIP TAK WING, MICHAEL v. HKSAR

Citation

YIP TAK WING, MICHAEL v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC28/2011

By majority the Court held the conviction was safe: the trial judge properly evaluated the DNA expert evidence in the context of the total circumstantial matrix (observations of pursuit, collision and fleeing, recent possession indicia and absence of any evidence that anyone else wore the gloves) and the expert's admission of a theoretically 'relatively low' possibility that another person might have worn the gloves did not raise reasonable doubt; the judge could legitimately take into account the defendant's failure to give evidence when assessing the probative weight of the evidence, withou…
3 Dec 2008

HKSAR v. WONG YING KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG YING KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC27/2008

The conviction for robbery was quashed because the judge's reliance on the 2nd defendant's evidence was unsafe: the accomplice's account was inherently improbable on the timeline and geography, the judge failed to assess the accomplice's propensity and credibility properly, and alternative explanations for the 1st defendant's possession were not adequately considered; substitution of an alternative verdict for handling was not made because the trial judge did not make findings (or clear implications) as to the appellant's knowledge that the pendant was stolen independent of the flawed accompl…
1 Aug 2008

HKSAR v. TSANG YUK FEI

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG YUK FEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC316/2007

The judge correctly rejected inconsistent accounts and, based on the remaining evidence, the only reasonable inference was that the trees were stolen within Hong Kong and the accused knew them to be stolen; Ling Yuen was distinguishable and provided no basis to disturb convictions; accordingly the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed and limited months of custody ordered not to count under s83W CPO.
22 Nov 2007

HKSAR v. IU WAI SHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. IU WAI SHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC66/2007

The Court held the sentencing judge acted within his discretion in ordering the theft sentence to be partly concurrent and partly consecutive to the burglary sentence in order to achieve correct totality; the overall sentence of 3 years was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offending, the applicant's record and absence of mitigation, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
29 Dec 2004

HKSAR v. LUK AH NAM

Citation

HKSAR v. LUK AH NAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1106/2004

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate was entitled to draw the irresistible inference of joint theft from the totality of circumstantial evidence — the appellants' observed behaviour, possession of the phones shortly after their loss, cooperation in attempting to sell them and absence of money passing — and discrepancies in witness evidence were immaterial to that core finding.
7 Oct 1999

HKSAR v. FONG CHONG PUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. FONG CHONG PUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC528/1998

The Court held the convictions were safe because the cumulative circumstantial and forensic evidence (keys/pager, unique parcel markings on tickets, cloth samples physically matched and bearing D3's thumbprint, fibres linking D3's jacket to the lorry, identifications and other links) justified inferences of control/possession and of knowledge or belief the goods were stolen; D2's counsel's failure to adduce good character did not produce a miscarriage of justice given the strength of the case; sentencing was not manifestly excessive and the trial judge properly applied the totality principle…
11 Jun 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN TING KWOK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN TING KWOK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC73/1999

The trial judge properly evaluated the identification evidence and the recent possession evidence (notably a highly distinctive ring and sequences of bank notes); no material error in approach or omission in the Reasons for Verdict was proven, and therefore the appellate court will not disturb the conviction and dismiss the application for leave to appeal.