Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Explosive substances

  • 30 Oct 2017

    HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 321
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC41/2016

    The court held there is a case to answer against each defendant: the statutory definitions in the Crimes Ordinance read with the Dangerous Goods Ordinance and established English authorities provide a sufficiently precise and broad meaning of 'explosive substance', and the prosecution evidence (surveillance, exhibits, expert opinion) if accepted by a jury could properly support convictions; the constitutional challenge and arguments about regulatory classification and reverse onus were rejected or inapplicable at this stage.

  • 22 Jul 1968

    LAM TUK YU v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    LAM TUK YU v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC111/1968

    Counsel for the Crown improperly conducted cross-examination in a manner that would reasonably lead the jury to infer the existence and content of an inadmissible/uncautioned statement by the appellant; although information from an inadmissible statement may be used to challenge credit, counsel must not frame questions so as to reveal or allow the jury to infer the existence of such a statement. The irregularity was material to the safety of the conviction; therefore the conviction on the count is quashed and a new trial ordered.