Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Smuggling

Legal area

Court

15 May 2023

香港特別行政區訴李鍚均

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA119/2022

The trial judge's adverse credibility findings and factual determinations were open on the evidence; the appellant failed to discharge the evidential threshold and in any event did not make the reasonable efforts required by s.18(2) (such as opening the fuel cap and smelling), so the statutory defence was not available and the Crown proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence of 8 weeks' immediate imprisonment was lawful and not manifestly excessive.
6 Aug 2019

香港特別行政區訴羅國華

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1858
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA115/2019

The court held the appellant did not take the reasonable steps that an experienced driver in his position would have taken and therefore failed to establish the s18(2) evidential defence; the prosecution proved that reasonable efforts would have revealed the concealed cigarettes, so conviction and sentence were upheld.
7 May 2019

香港特別行政區訴馮錦麟

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1096
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA591/2018

The court held the appellant failed to prove he had made reasonable efforts under s18(2): instructions to the driver were vague, inspections were left to the driver's discretion, there were no monitoring or records, and given the location of the contraband it would likely have been discovered had proper supervision been exercised; therefore the statutory defence failed and the conviction was upheld.
12 Mar 2008

HKSAR v. SO SUNG LOI AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. SO SUNG LOI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC115/2007

The court concluded from the proven facts (value, quantity, night operation, lack of manifest, destination orders and local knowledge) that each appellant who dealt with the cargo knowingly intended to assist export without a manifest; the conspiracies to make false claims tended to pervert the course of justice and warranted imprisonment; accordingly appeals against sentence were dismissed for D1, D2, D5, D9 and D10, but allowed for D4 and D7 on the basis that time served was sufficient and orders were made for their immediate release; the out‑of‑time conviction appeal by D1 was dismissed.
15 Mar 2005

HKSAR v. CHOY HO PUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOY HO PUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA101/2005

The magistrate did not err: the evidence supported a reasonable inference of guilt on Charges 1 and 2, the magistrate properly assessed the prosecution case and did not shift the legal burden of proof or improperly penalise the appellant for not giving evidence; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
16 Nov 2004

HKSAR v. CHEN ZHI-QUAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEN ZHI-QUAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1003/2004

The Magistrate's sentencing decision of 12 months imprisonment for the large‑scale possession/dealing of cigarettes was not manifestly excessive and is supported by precedent (HKSAR v MOK Chun‑wing) and the absence of procedural or legal error; appellate interference is not warranted.
24 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. SHEK TAK TAI

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEK TAK TAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA795/2000

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate did not err in principle nor impose a sentence that was manifestly excessive given the agreed facts, the value of the goods, the clandestine nature of the transshipment and supporting authorities allowing immediate custodial sentences in similar smuggling cases.
14 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. LUM SHUI KWAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LUM SHUI KWAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA970/1999

The first-charge sentence of 12 months was not manifestly excessive given the scale and public health risk; the third charge arose from the same incident and therefore its sentence should run concurrently with the first two, making total custody 12 months.
17 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. POON CHUN WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. POON CHUN WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA819/1998

The magistrate lawfully accepted the credible evidence of customs officers, was entitled to place no weight on untested exculpatory verbal statements and to draw the inference that the appellants knew the cigarettes were not duty paid; there was no basis for appellate interference and the convictions were upheld as safe.
18 Feb 1998

HKSAR v. CHOI GIN NGON AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI GIN NGON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC570/1997

The Court held that, on the whole of the admissible evidence (documents, communications, witness testimony and conduct), the trial judge legitimately found that D3 and D4 knowingly dealt with cargo with intent to assist export without a manifest; the judge validly treated deliberate, material lies as reinforcing other evidence; a District Judge is not required to state all jury-style directions in reasons for verdict; identification of the assisted party is unnecessary under s.18A; accordingly convictions of D3 and D4 are safe and D1's sentence is not manifestly excessive.