Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Circumstantial evidence and inferences

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴蘇家玉

Citation

[2025] HKCA 319
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC151/2022

The Court held the trial defence advocacy was not constitutionally or professionally deficient: counsel gave reasonable, informed advice in light of contemporaneous authorities and the client’s instructions and vulnerabilities; the applicant’s choice not to give evidence was an informed exercise of her right. On the evidence (including video and environmental evidence) the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was part of the riot group. Consequently the leave application and appeal against conviction were dismissed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
12 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. MORROW JR, CHARLES RAYMOND

Citation

[2024] HKCA 161
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC266/2021

The Judge gave clear, case-specific and legally sufficient directions on knowledge, inferences and lies; the prior conviction evidence was admissible and properly confined to credibility under statutory provision; the DEA memorandum and downloaded judgment did not render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe; the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal was refused.
1 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴嚴志豪

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA222/2023

基於現場環境證據（深夜將滿載貨車駛近未亮燈大馬力快艇、八人連成人鏈搬運貨物、被告之尾門在貨物搬運期間未關及被告迅速駛離並提供自相矛盾的說法），唯一合理且不可抗拒的推論是被告當時明知貨物無艙單並有意協助他人經海路輸出，裁判官正確拒絕被告之開脫證供，定罪不不安全不穩妥。
17 May 2022

HKSAR v. CHU KAR KEET

Citation

[2022] HKCA 590
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC284/2019

The Court held that prosecuting counsel’s remarks about the appellant’s homelessness, given knowledge of agreed redactions, amounted to a material irregularity, but applying the proviso the conviction was upheld because the admissible evidence was overwhelming and a reasonable properly instructed jury would inevitably have convicted; the trial judge’s summing‑up taken as a whole was fair and did not render the conviction unsafe; renewal of leave on Ground 2 refused.
23 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. OKAFOR CHRISTIAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1909
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC20/2021

The applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable because the case against him did not depend on confrontation or dock-to-CCTV face comparison, the judge gave adequate and context-specific directions on CCTV evidence and inferences consistent with specimen directions and case law, and the jury were not subjected to improper pressure during deliberations; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
10 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. CHAN KAI MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 652
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC262/2019

The court held the judge's directions and admission of evidence were proper and not reasonably arguable grounds for leave except that the judge's comments characterising the absence of fingerprint evidence as 'neither here nor there' raised a reasonably arguable point. Consequently leave to appeal convictions was granted limited to that issue; other grounds were refused and the 1st applicant's leave to appeal sentence was dismissed. An Appeal Aid Certificate was granted to the applicants to pursue the granted appeal.
10 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴郭俊希

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2986
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA610/2018

Appeal allowed because the Crown's evidence did not exclude reasonable alternative inferences (notably that payments and communications related to technical assistance or pre-test modifications rather than inducement to certify unqualified vehicles); conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed.
6 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴俞鵬東

Citation

[2020] HKCA 539
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC325/2019

The available circumstantial evidence—applicant's tenancy, his DNA and fingerprints in multiple locations/items in the flat where manufacture was occurring, and his immediate flight and prolonged absence—allowed a reasonable and irresistible inference of participation in drug manufacture; the jury was properly directed and the 20-year sentence was not manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.
30 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. WONG WING MAN, MANDY alias WANG XUEXIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 534
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC200/2018

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence by both applicants refused because the alleged trial misdirections and evidential complaints were not reasonably arguable: the trial judge correctly admitted the statement after factual assessment, jury directions (including on circumstantial evidence and duress) were adequate with written directions before jury curing any oral slip, the photographs were admitted by agreement and properly directed upon, the perverting counts formed a distinct category justifying consecutive sequencing within totality, and proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy…
23 Oct 2019

HKSAR v. LAI KIN HANG ERWIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 547
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC373/2017

On the totality of admissible direct and circumstantial evidence — company registry records showing control, bank account signatory records and numerous cheques issued in applicants' signatures, operation of a call centre, consistent victim identifications and CCTV/seized documents linking individuals to Wincades — the judge was entitled to infer each applicant's complicity in a single global conspiracy to defraud; absence of expert signature evidence or some successful loan outcomes did not render the inferences impermissible or the convictions unsafe; leave to appeal was therefore refused a…