Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Inferences

  • 28 Oct 2022

    RE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1635
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CASJ2/2021

    The court held the correct test for a submission of no case to answer is the Galbraith test as applied in Attorney General v Li Fook Shiu Ronald: the judge must decide, on prosecution evidence taken at its highest (and excluding defence explanations save insofar as they are objectively incontrovertible), whether a reasonable jury properly directed could, may or might be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the required inferences; judges in the three referred cases wrongly accepted or evaluated defence-only explanations and made factual findings thereby usurping the jury, and their rulings of…

  • 20 Jul 2021

    HKSAR v. PURUGGANAN ROGELIO GARCIA

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2138
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC196/2020

    The application for no case to answer was refused because there is a prima facie case from proven facts and inferences such that a reasonable jury, properly directed, could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was importing dangerous drugs; competing innocent explanations are not inherently improbable and are for the jury to assess.

  • 15 Mar 2016

    HKSAR v. CHAN MAN NA AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN MAN NA AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC583/2015

    There is a case for D1 to answer because the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, taken at its highest and drawing all reasonable inferences favourable to the prosecution, was capable of leading a reasonable jury properly directed to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that D1 participated in a joint enterprise to blackmail PW1.

  • 10 Feb 2010

    WONG CHEUNG HUNG v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    WONG CHEUNG HUNG v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV108/2007

    The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal's factual findings and conclusions that relevant, price-sensitive information existed and that appellants used that information to trade; the Tribunal validly applied a civil standard of proof requiring high probability, properly drew compelling inferences from telephone and trading records, correctly admitted Harbour Ring evidence to rebut coincidence, and was not required to prove causation under s9; accordingly, the appeals were dismissed except that financial penalties under s23(1)(c) were set aside pursuant to Koon Wing Yee.

  • 22 Jan 2002

    TANG KWOK WAH, DIXON v. HKSAR

    Citation
    TANG KWOK WAH, DIXON v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC4/2001

    The appeal is dismissed: the trial judge's directions did not produce a substantial and grave injustice. No special direction on "only reasonable inference" was legally required in the circumstances because the prosecution's case depended on the complainant's direct evidence and the other evidence was properly confined to assessing her credibility; the judge correctly warned about lack of corroboration and gave accurate directions on burden and standard of proof; the manner of accepting parts of a witness's testimony did not amount to a departure from accepted norms that would vitiate the con…

  • 6 Nov 1998

    HKSAR v. CHAN SIU LEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN SIU LEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC547/1997

    The trial judge's directions on drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence, though phrased using the word "sensible" rather than "reasonable" or "compelling," were sufficiently clear and amounted to no legal misdirection in context; the conviction based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence was safe and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.