Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inference of fact

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴羅建梅

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2905
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA154/2023

On re-hearing the court concluded the circumstantial and documentary evidence (damage positions, vehicle dimensions, photographs, the investigating officer's report and the appellant's admitted facts) permitted only the irresistible inference that the appellant negligently reversed into and damaged the neighbouring parked car; therefore the conviction for careless driving was proven beyond reasonable doubt and is upheld.
25 Oct 2024

嘉信大廈業主立案法團 v. 張笑媚

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 87
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMP6/2023

The Tribunal concluded there was admissible, compelling circumstantial and direct evidence from which no reasonable tribunal could fail to infer that the respondent had possession, custody or control of IO’s properties during the relevant period and wilfully refused to comply with the Previous Judgment; the criminal standard was correctly applied; there was no error of law in the reasoning; and the one‑month custodial sentence was within proper principle and proportion given contumacious, intentional breach and absence of mitigation, so leave to appeal lacked reasonable prospect of success.
10 Dec 2014

HKSAR v. JANG YOUNGSU

Citation

HKSAR v. JANG YOUNGSU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2014

The judge misdirected himself by treating the applicant's intoxication as not a material consideration in evaluating intent; given the brief duration, the applicant's intoxication and out-of-character conduct, the inference that he intended to take possession of the firearm was not the only reasonable inference, and therefore the conviction could not stand and was quashed.
28 Feb 2007

ZEE YEE KA JESSICA v. GREENWOOD (ASIA) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZEE YEE KA JESSICA v. GREENWOOD (ASIA) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6578/2003

Leave to appeal was granted because the court could not be satisfied that the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: some trial findings were based on inferences susceptible to appellate re-evaluation and there was an inconsistent earlier statement by the Defendants that could affect the outcome; accordingly leave was appropriate and costs of the application were ordered in the cause with a certificate for counsel.
26 Jul 1983

LEUNG HAU v. CHAN CHUN LEUNG

Citation

LEUNG HAU v. CHAN CHUN LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/1983

The appellate court will not interfere with the Presiding Officer's findings of fact or inferences unless there is no evidence to support them or the inference was one no reasonable tribunal could draw; here the Presiding Officer's adverse findings on credibility and motive were within his fact‑finding remit, so the appeal must be dismissed.
26 Sept 1969

CHAN KAM WING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN KAM WING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC617/1969

The conviction could not stand because the Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant both knew the premises were being used as a brothel and knowingly permitted that use; the magistrate relied on insufficient and, in part, inadmissible inferences from episodic, equivocal evidence (brief apparent control, register possession, unclear sightings) and conflated apparent temporary control with regular keeping, thereby improperly inferring permission to use the premises for prostitution.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 羅建梅

嘉信大廈業主立案法團 v. 張笑媚

HKSAR v. JANG YOUNGSU

ZEE YEE KA JESSICA v. GREENWOOD (ASIA) LTD AND ANOTHER

LEUNG HAU v. CHAN CHUN LEUNG

CHAN KAM WING v. THE QUEEN

香港特別行政區訴羅建梅