Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Drawing inferences

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2020

HKSAR v. ALI QASIM

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 43
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC13/2020

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed ground was unarguable: the evidence permitted the jury to draw the only reasonable inference of the applicant's knowledge and the applicant's factual contention was speculative and had already been excluded as a ground in the Court of Appeal; there was no basis to grant leave on the substantial and grave injustice ground.
25 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. APELETE KOKOU AFLA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1320
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC176/2017

The Court refused leave because the totality of contemporaneous documentary and audiovisual material, signed instructions, counsel's notes and court transcripts demonstrated the applicant understood English and the interpretation provided, that trial lawyers had taken instructions and acted competently, that summing-up directions were proper in context and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive; the flagrant incompetence ground was unarguable and caused unnecessary detriment to trial lawyers, warranting a three‑month loss‑of‑time order.
30 Jul 2019

HKSAR v. ALI QASIM

Citation

[2019] HKCA 847
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC332/2018

Leave to appeal against conviction granted solely on the reasonably arguable ground that the judge's directions on the drawing of inferences may have been confusing to the jury; all other grounds against conviction and all grounds against sentence were refused because the judge's factual summaries and sentence enhancements were appropriate and in accordance with authority.
11 Sept 2018

HKSAR v. LIU CHUN SING

Citation

[2018] HKCA 596
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC208/2016

The Court held that the trial directions accorded with established law and Specimen Direction 21.3 as explained in Kwan Ping Bong and Winnie Lo; the judge's phrasing did not place a burden on the defence; the questions did not raise points of law of great and general importance and certification under s32(2) was declined.
26 Jul 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN MAN SUM, IVAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN MAN SUM, IVAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC273/2015

The trial judge materially misdirected the jury by failing to clearly instruct that an adverse inference from circumstantial evidence may only be drawn if it is the only reasonable inference from the proved facts; that misdirection was not cured by other remarks in the summing up, was material and required quashing of the conviction; the proviso was inapplicable and a retrial was ordered.
21 Mar 2016

HKSAR v. GHULAM RAZA

Citation

HKSAR v. GHULAM RAZA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC312/2015

The judge's factual findings—CCTV evidence of impact timing, DNA of the deceased on the applicant's right rear tyre, witness evidence and vehicle defects—provided a compelling and permissible basis to infer that the applicant's vehicle struck the deceased and that he failed to keep a proper lookout while reversing; a competent and careful driver would have ensured no one was behind the vehicle, so the driving fell far below the required standard and the conviction was safe, making the appeal unarguable.
12 Jun 2015

HKSAR v. NGUYEN ANH NGA

Citation

HKSAR v. NGUYEN ANH NGA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC424/2012

The applicant's reactions and non-reaction constituted ordinary circumstantial evidence relevant to knowledge; the trial judge gave adequate general directions on inferences, burden and standard of proof and the omission to single out those reactions for a special direction was not material to the safety of the conviction; leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
18 Apr 2011

HKSAR v. TANG LAP SAN

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG LAP SAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC345/2010

The judge properly considered all the evidence, was entitled to reject the applicant's explanation as incredible, and to draw the irresistible inference that the applicant entered the locked private room as a trespasser with intent to steal; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction was without merit and dismissed.
28 Sept 2010

LAM HON NAM v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM HON NAM v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV109/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law of great general or public importance was shown; the Tribunal properly admitted Harbour Ring evidence for the limited purpose of rebutting coincidence; the extensive circumstantial evidence justified the Tribunal's inferences (not backward reasoning); the Tribunal gave adequate reasons on major issues; and Lam Nam was not denied an opportunity to explain such that leave would be warranted.
29 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. KO KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. KO KIT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC65/2009

The appellate court upheld the trial judge: the ICAC's recording of the 13‑minute solicitor meeting was an inadvertent by‑product of authorised long‑term surveillance conducted with DOJ advice, the officers acted in good faith and took steps to secure the recording; the subsequent handling (transcription/translation and disclosure in the unused material) did not amount to such an affront to the public conscience as to justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay; the trial judge's adverse inferences from extensive circumstantial evidence were open to him and did not constitute an error…