Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Guilty knowledge

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. LI CHEUK WAH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1486
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC135/2021

Leave to appeal was granted only on the narrow question whether evidence of an accused's involvement in a controlled delivery should be subject to conditions or restrictions and whether any special jury warning is required in light of Choi Chi Tak; the court found this issue reasonably arguable on the authorities and factual matrix, while refusing leave on the remaining grounds because they were not reasonably arguable and holding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient and the conviction was not otherwise unsafe.
11 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. YEUNG YICK MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG YICK MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1005/2006

The appeal was dismissed because there was no evidence of any prosecutorial undertaking to prevent prosecution and because the appellant voluntarily chose not to call the key witness at trial; the magistrate's adverse credibility findings (including inference from flight) were open on the evidence and should not be disturbed on appeal.
20 Jan 1994

R. v. CHIU Anastasius

Citation

R. v. CHIU Anastasius
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC730/1993

Application for bail was dismissed because the applicant failed to show a strong likelihood of success on appeal; the trial judge's erroneous reference to the s29(6)(a)(i) presumption did not undermine his independent findings of guilty knowledge, and the judge properly assessed lies to police as evidence subject to caution.
27 Dec 1991

THE QUEEN v. HO KIN PING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HO KIN PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA549/1991

Magistrate's adverse credibility finding that the claimant was a knowing participant in smuggling meant forfeiture was within discretion and the High Court found no basis to disturb that factual finding or the exercise of discretion given the public interest in preventing smuggling.
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.
17 May 1988

THE QUEEN v. NG WAI KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG WAI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC108/1988

The trial judge was entitled to prefer the police evidence, to find the applicant deliberately dishonest about his conduct after the vehicle stopped, and to draw from the applicant's flight the inference that he had guilty knowledge; on that basis the appellate court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against conviction.
7 Oct 1983

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG HON WANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG HON WANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC187/1983

The Court held the trial judge correctly directed the jury and that the totality of evidence — including cautioned statements, admissions, discrepancies in testimony, the suspicious early delivery arrangement, the low price paid relative to expected value and the substantial profit margin — supported the jury's findings of guilty knowledge; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction (and sentence for the 4th accused) was refused.
9 Dec 1982

CHEUNG FUK-KI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHEUNG FUK-KI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC628/1982

Although the trial judge used some unduly strong phrases suggesting the accused must "convince" the jury of innocence and that the jury had a duty to "suppress and punish" crime, these misdirections were immaterial because the judge clearly and correctly directed the jury that conviction required proof beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilty knowledge; therefore the conviction was safe. The sentence, however, was excessive relative to comparable cases and was reduced from 12 years to 9 years.
12 Jun 1975

LAU SHEK-HUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAU SHEK-HUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC131/1975

Convictions set aside because the trial summing-up unduly emphasized association and recent possession in a way that could have improperly led the jury to infer guilty knowledge; on the facts it was unsafe to sustain convictions for handling under s.24 despite the statutory breadth of that offence.