Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Drawing of inferences

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. VIJAYAKUMARA RAJA VISHNUSANKAR

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 282
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA251/2021

The magistrate was entitled to accept the prosecution witness, reject the appellant's explanation, draw the reasonable and irresistible inference from the observed conduct (carrying clams twice into a live seafood pond with no other persons present) that the appellant was undertaking odd job work amounting to taking employment contrary to s38AA; there was sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt and no basis for appellate interference with credibility findings.
6 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. MOALA ALIPATE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2611
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC76/2019

The court found the emails between defendant and Antony were genuine and, when taken with the defendant's VRI denial, were capable of supporting only a single reasonable inference—that the defendant was duped into transporting alleged 'chemicals' and therefore innocent; DNA evidence could be explained by indirect transfer scenarios and did not exclude that innocence inference; s47 only imposes an evidential burden which the emails and VRI satisfy; accordingly no properly directed jury could be sure to draw an adverse inference beyond reasonable doubt and the judge ruled no case to answer.
22 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. DINDA RABIATUL ADWIA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1858
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC136/2020

Given the limited proven facts and credible alternative innocent explanations supported by the defendants' interviews, a properly directed reasonable jury could not be compelled to infer knowledge; accordingly the judge stopped the case at the close of the Crown case and directed the jury that there was no case to answer.
1 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. LIU YAU FOOK

Citation

[2020] HKCA 745
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2019

The Court held that the objective circumstances (night loading of black-wrapped pallets onto speedboats very close to the border, observed operation of the crane by the applicant, the lack of manifest) were acts more than merely preparatory and permitted only the irresistible inference that the applicant intended to export the goods; the judge was entitled to reject the applicant’s cautioned statement and to refuse leave to appeal.
24 Oct 2018

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIM SHING

Citation

[2018] HKCA 738
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC267/2017

The judge was wrong to refuse to compel the witness to answer one cross-examination question (a material irregularity) but that irregularity did not produce real prejudice to the applicant; there was no obligation to give a direction on drawing inferences because the fingerprint evidence was direct contact evidence and no credible competing inference was supported by evidence; applying the proviso the conviction is safe and must be upheld.
4 Sept 2018

HKSAR v. PEREZ OSORIO LUIS FERNANDO

Citation

[2018] HKCA 567
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC284/2016

On the primary facts (telephone connections between applicant and the courier contact, calls to the hotel, applicant’s presence and conduct at the door and reaching for the suitcase, possession of significant cash and the high value of the drugs) a properly directed jury could reasonably infer the applicant knew the suitcase contained drugs; leaving attempt as alternative verdict was correct because the applicant was arrested before acquiring possession; the judge properly exercised discretion in refusing a good character direction and her directions on inferences and attempt were not unfair;…
26 Jan 2017

HKSAR v. LING KA KEUNG, EDDIE

Citation

HKSAR v. LING KA KEUNG, EDDIE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC438/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge did not err in law or misuse her discretion: the prosecution relied on direct accomplice testimony so no exceptional direction on drawing inferences was required; the judge repeatedly and adequately directed the jury on burden and standard of proof and on how to treat the applicant’s rejected explanations; the caution to treat accomplice evidence with "some care" was sufficient given the obvious dangers and the judge's detailed exposition of inconsistencies, so there was no denial of a fair trial.
28 Apr 2014

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA71/2014

Application for bail pending appeal dismissed because applicant's own delay undermined the time basis and the appeal was not shown to be reasonably arguable prima facie: the magistrate's credibility findings and her approach to drawing inferences were not shown to be erroneous.
20 Jun 2013

HKSAR v. LO YIU WA

Citation

HKSAR v. LO YIU WA<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC232/2012

The conviction stands because the circumstantial evidence (tenant status, drugs and packaging found in flat, matching distinctive purple bags, the co-accused leaving carrying the bag shortly before arrest, and the applicant's own admissions permitting storage) was sufficient and the judge properly directed the jury; however the aggregate sentence of 12 years was excessive because insufficient account was taken of the guilty plea to count 2, and on appeal the total sentence is reduced to 10 years 9 months by altering the consecutive portion of count 2 from 2 years to 9 months.
31 Jul 2009

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM CHIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM CHIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC227/2006

The trial judge's directions were adequate on demeanour, inferences, and caution about accomplice/informer evidence; there was no misdirection or impermissible support for the informer; the jury were properly instructed that an inference of guilt must be the only reasonable inference and that acting on the side of the police would require acquittal; accordingly the convictions and the 24-year sentence were upheld and the appeals dismissed.