Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Doctrine of recent possession

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2020

HKSAR v. NAYAB AMIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 196
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC341/2017

The convictions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants were quashed and retrial ordered because the judge materially misdirected the jury by limiting the possible inference from recent possession to robbery only when possession was equally consistent with handling stolen goods; additionally the PII process was defective because the prosecution failed to provide a witness statement from Mr X and the court emphasised the correct legal approach to PII (active informers are not automatically within the informer class and a detailed statement is required to assess the innocence-at-stake exception), bu…
18 Jul 2012

HKSAR v. CHENG CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC94/2011

The Court held the totality of evidence established the applicant as a professional handler (fence) rather than the thief; the doctrine of recent possession does not displace consideration of all evidence and does not impose an extra burden on prosecution to prove the negative element 'otherwise than in the course of stealing'; leave to appeal conviction was dismissed. On review under section 81A the Court found aggravating factors warranted increasing the starting point to 5 years per count and the total effective sentence to 5 years 6 months (with six months of the fifth count consecutive).
14 Dec 2006

HKSAR v. IP WAI HONG MARK

Citation

HKSAR v. IP WAI HONG MARK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC97/2006

The conviction was unsafe because the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of possession or control by the appellant — mere presence as a passenger was insufficient — therefore the conviction for handling by receiving could not stand and was quashed.
22 Mar 2006

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC408/2005

The conviction was quashed because the appellate court found the evidence against the applicant did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew or believed the cars were stolen; the available acts and documents amounted to suspicion only and there was insufficient admissible evidence to support an inference of guilty knowledge.
17 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. LAU HEI CHOI

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU HEI CHOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2000

The conviction was upheld because the combination of recent possession of pieces of the stolen gold, forensic evidence that the appellant had used a bolt cutter to sever pieces (including across serial numbers), vehicle movements linking him to the getaway, and absence of a credible innocent explanation permitted the only reasonable inference of guilty knowledge; the sentence was within permissible range and not excessive.
17 Mar 1998

HKSAR v. DO VAN VE

Citation

HKSAR v. DO VAN VE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC543/1997

The Court held the trial judge was entitled to reject the applicant's explanations, to apply the doctrine of recent possession given the defendant was found with the stolen watch two days after the burglary, and to treat deliberate lies as supporting an inference of guilt; accordingly the conviction was safe and leave to appeal was refused.
30 Apr 1997

R. v. WONG WAI HUNG

Citation

R. v. WONG WAI HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC244/1996

The charge omitted an essential statutory ingredient and the judge's reasons did not exclude the possibility that the appellant was acting for his own benefit; therefore the omission was prejudicial, the proviso could not be applied and the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed.
12 Dec 1996

R. v. WONG CHUNG MAN

Citation

R. v. WONG CHUNG MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC289/1996

The trial judge was entitled to reject the applicant's explanation, to consider his demeanour and nine years' experience in transport, and to draw the inference under the doctrine of recent possession together with use of false identity and inflated fees that the applicant knew or believed the vehicles were stolen; leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
6 Dec 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG SHING KIN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG SHING KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC242/1988

Evidence of PW10 and PW11 was admissible under s.29(3); the trial judge did not fail to exercise any exclusionary discretion (no objection was taken and the nature of the evidence justified admission); a not guilty plea put guilty knowledge in issue; identification and recent possession findings were sufficient — leave to appeal refused and convictions upheld.
13 Oct 1987

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUNG CHIU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUNG CHIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC427/1987

The trial judge correctly applied the doctrine of recent possession to admitted facts — large quantity of pearls stolen in a burglary found in defendant's possession shortly thereafter — and, having found the defendant deliberately untruthful, concluded the presumption of guilty knowledge was not rebutted; the conviction was therefore proper. The four‑year sentence was not manifestly excessive in view of the value of the goods (HK$151,180) and the applicant's prior dishonesty convictions and so the sentence was affirmed.