Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Flight as evidence

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. EXAVIER, FABIAN CARLO

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA180/2024

The appellate court, on rehearing, accepted the magistrate's factual findings and credibility assessments and held that the combination of credible observation evidence, CCTV support, recovery of the stolen property from a co-accused, the appellant's signalling conduct, and his flight from police established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acted in joint enterprise to commit the theft; the appeal was dismissed.
17 Jun 2021

香港特別行政區訴陳東成

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1669
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA333/2020

Court upheld conviction for obstruction (count 2) because, on the totality of circumstantial evidence (presence in the middle of black‑clad group actively blocking the road, proximity to debris, mask and clothing, and unexplained flight), the only reasonable inference was participation in the joint enterprise to obstruct. Court allowed appeal against conviction for possession of an offensive weapon/tool (count 1) because the evidence did not support a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the hex keys were intended to be used as an offensive weapon; conviction for possession of a tool suitable…
9 Mar 2021

香港特別行政區訴王天福

Citation

[2021] HKCA 292
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC175/2020

The appellate court found the trial judge's credibility and identification findings and legal applications were rational and lawful; no error of principle was shown and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed.
21 Jan 2020

HKSAR v. MAK CHEUK KIT

Citation

[2020] HKCA 79
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC305/2018

Given the primary facts — appellant's multiple highly personal identity documents and a large sum of cash found in a shoulder bag in UD9633 in close proximity to packaged cocaine, the appellant's DNA on the steering wheel, and the appellant's flight leaving those items behind — the only reasonable and unassailable inference was that the appellant was the person who exited and fled (X) and was knowingly in possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking; therefore the conviction and sentence were upheld.
23 Oct 2019

HKSAR v. MAK CHEUK KIT

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1188
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC305/2018

Leave to appeal was granted because it is reasonably arguable that the trial judge made a quantum leap from finding items bearing the Applicant's name in a vehicle registered to his mother to concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the Applicant was the fleeing person X and that X knowingly possessed the drugs for trafficking, and that the judge may have improperly used flight as the decisive basis for inferring guilt; these points are properly arguable on appeal.
13 Mar 2015

HKSAR v. CHENG SHEK FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG SHEK FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC337/2014

The applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie likelihood that their appeals would succeed because the trial judge properly applied Turnbull principles, the arrests and contemporaneous CCTV and surveillance evidence supported participation rather than mere presence, and the asserted defects (missing photographs, CCTV timestamp discrepancies, absence of a flight warning) were considered and did not undermine the safety of the convictions; accordingly bail pending appeal was denied.
27 Nov 2009

HKSAR v. MOK YU CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MOK YU CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC269/2008

The Court held the trial judge did not err: the evidence, including TSOI's testimony, was not inherently incapable of belief and credibility was for the jury; the directions on accomplice evidence, identification and flight were adequate and balanced when read as a whole; the 10-year sentence for the second applicant was justified by his greater role and weapon use and therefore not disproportionate.
28 Feb 2003

LO MAN KAM v. HKSAR

Citation

LO MAN KAM v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC5/2003

The Court refused to certify points of law and refused leave to appeal because the identification evidence was sufficient for conviction without a Turnbull direction in a judge-alone trial and the evidence relied on as flight was not shown to be equivocal or the decisive basis for conviction; accordingly no substantial and grave injustice was shown to justify leave out of time.
27 Aug 2002

HKSAR v. CHEUK KA TAM

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUK KA TAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC189/2000

The court held that once the defendant placed his character in issue the prosecution's cross-examination on previous convictions was permissible and had been conducted with restraint; the summing up, read as a whole, fairly directed the jury including on credibility, burden of proof and flight, no specific lies direction was required because alleged lies bore only on credibility, and any loose phraseology was not materially prejudicial; therefore the conviction was safe and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
25 Jul 2000

HKSAR v. HO CHI YUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. HO CHI YUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC539/1999

The conviction was safe because the judge properly evaluated identification under Turnbull principles and found PW3's positive identification reliable given close distance (about 3 metres), good lighting, short observation (~20 seconds), immediate temporal and spatial proximity (applicant stopped ~100 metres from scene running in same direction) and distinctive clothing; medical testimony did not materially undermine the officers' accounts; flight was relied on only to support identification, not as sole basis; accordingly the application to appeal was dismissed.