Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unlawful trafficking

Legal area

Court

12 Jul 2021

HKSAR v. DONG JUAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 991
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC242/2019

The applicant's guilty plea was voluntary and unequivocal, the asserted duress was inconsistent with her admission of accepting reward and was unsupported, defence counsel acted competently, the applicant offered no timely affidavit to explain the delay in seeking leave, and therefore the out‑of‑time renewal of leave to appeal had no merit and was refused; the appeal was dismissed and a one month loss of time was imposed for persisting in a meritless application.
29 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. LAM CHEUK HEI

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM CHEUK HEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC7/2017

The Court applied the ratio test to determine an appropriate enhanced starting point of 81 months (base via ratio test plus 6 months for trafficking in Ice and ketamine and 4 months for committing the offence while on bail), then applied a one-third discount for guilty plea, resulting in a substituted sentence of 54 months' imprisonment and quashing the earlier 56-month sentence.
31 Aug 2017

HKSAR v. MALIK KAMRAN

Citation

HKSAR v. MALIK KAMRAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC112/2017

The Court refused leave to appeal: the trial judge was entitled to infer unlawful trafficking from the proved facts (possession of 8g in a public place, implausible account of consumption and price, lack of lawful income); the sentencing starting point and 15% reduction for self-consumption were within judicial discretion; although failing to treat Form 8 status as an aggravating factor was an error, it did not provide a reasonable ground to disturb the sentence which was, if anything, unduly lenient.
24 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. LAM MAN YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM MAN YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC357/2014

The judge's failure to direct the jury that they must consider the case against each defendant separately was a material non‑direction as to the 2nd applicant given the substantial differences in evidence between the two defendants, rendering her conviction unsafe; the 2nd applicant's conviction was quashed and retrial ordered. The same non‑direction was not material as to the 1st applicant because the evidence against him was overwhelming, so his conviction and leave refusal were upheld (proviso applied as to the 1st applicant).
27 Jan 2016

HKSAR v. ANYALECHI UGOCHUKWU GIDEON

Citation

HKSAR v. ANYALECHI UGOCHUKWU GIDEON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC184/2015

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because no adequate explanation was given for the 15‑week delay and the guilty plea was unequivocal and admitted the offence; the judge’s starting point of 19 years for the cocaine quantity and a one‑year enhancement for the international element were within correct legal principles; personal and family circumstances did not amount to mitigation sufficient to warrant granting leave or reducing an otherwise appropriate sentence.
25 Jun 2015

HKSAR v. HOLGUIN SANCHEZ DIANA MILENA

Citation

HKSAR v. HOLGUIN SANCHEZ DIANA MILENA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC439/2014

The plea was voluntary and unequivocal and the applicant had admitted facts amounting to trafficking; counsel had properly advised and confirmed the plea; the judge's starting point and the discounts for partial personal use and plea were within established ranges; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.
22 May 2015

HKSAR v. KOWITATSAWANON RANNAPRAPHA

Citation

HKSAR v. KOWITATSAWANON RANNAPRAPHA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC275/2014

The court held that there is no legal requirement to give a special direction in the terms contended for; the judge's repeated standard directions as to burden and proof beyond reasonable doubt were sufficient in the circumstances because the prosecution relied on undermining the applicant's credibility rather than establishing an essential fact solely by circumstantial inference, and therefore leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
13 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. MOTHOSOLA MALEFETSANE EDY

Citation

HKSAR v. MOTHOSOLA MALEFETSANE EDY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC50/2014

Enhancement of 2 years for the international element was manifestly excessive for trafficking 220g of heroin; appropriate enhancement is 6 months, producing an enhanced starting point of 12.5 years which, after a one‑third guilty plea discount, results in an 8 years 4 months sentence; avoid double counting importation and intended exportation.
10 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. FERUZI MARIAM HARUNA

Citation

HKSAR v. FERUZI MARIAM HARUNA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC12/2014

The court refused leave to appeal out of time because the applicant provided no cogent explanation for the delay and, on the merits, the sentence was not manifestly excessive: the judge's starting point of 18.5 years was within discretion, a one-year uplift for importation was appropriate given the international element and quantity, and the one-third guilty plea discount produced a lawful 13-year term.
8 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. HUNG WAI YIP AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. HUNG WAI YIP AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC51/2011

The Court held the 1st applicant failed to prove his Notice of Abandonment was not a deliberate and informed act; the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to require a jury to answer Count 3; counsel's conduct did not amount to flagrant incompetence as tactical decisions were professionally justified and the co-defendant's out-of-court statements were inadmissible hearsay where the co-defendant was compellable; the voir dire witness tendered by the 2nd applicant related only to collateral credit and was properly excluded; accordingly both applicants' applications for leave to appeal were di…