Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Knowledge and mens rea

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2024

HKSAR v. LAM CHEUK NGAI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA279/2023

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the magistrate's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and that the circumstantial evidence — the appellant being the named recipient, the deceptive label, the individual sender, the appellant's acknowledgement of receipt and the high street value of the drugs — established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the parcel contained drugs.
30 Aug 1999

HKSAR v. CHUI KWOK KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUI KWOK KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC13/1999

The court held that the prosecution proved the three statutory elements (infringing copies, possession, possession for trade/business) beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial judge permissibly inferred the applicant knew the items were VCDs/CDs and had custody or control from circumstantial evidence (visibility of stacks, keys, rucksack contents, repeated visits); accordingly the burden shifted to the applicant to prove lack of knowledge on the balance of probabilities, which he failed to do, and the single combined charge was not duplicious given temporal and spatial proximity; leave to a…
18 Mar 1997

R. v. TSANG CHI FAI

Citation

R. v. TSANG CHI FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA108/1997

The magistrate properly drew an inference that the appellant knew the blanks were intended for making false instruments from the defective and indicative nature of the cards and from rejecting the appellant's explanation; he did not improperly use rejected statements as corroboration of guilt, and there was sufficient reasoned basis for the conviction, so the appeal must be dismissed.
22 Nov 1995

R. v. YAN WAI CHUNG

Citation

R. v. YAN WAI CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC243/1995

Convictions on counts 3 (possession of Rohypnol) and 4 (manufacture contrary to s.6(1)(a)) are unsafe because the judge misdirected the jury by equating knowledge that manufacture was occurring with involvement in manufacture and by permitting inference of knowledge from tenancy/access without requiring proof of occupation or visits; manufacturing requires proof the accused did something to help or participated, not mere knowledge, therefore convictions quashed.
19 Aug 1992

R. v. EMEKA JOE UDEOJI

Citation

R. v. EMEKA JOE UDEOJI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC146/1992

The judge erred in giving a wilful blindness direction and in suggesting an objective 'should have suspected' test for knowledge absent evidence raising suspicion; the misdirection was material and required allowing the appeal and ordering a retrial.
5 Nov 1982

YIM PO-LIN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YIM PO-LIN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC796/1982

The trial judge misdirected the jury by treating strong suspicion together with deliberate failure to inquire as equivalent to actual knowledge as a matter of law; wilful blindness may permit an inference of knowledge but that inference must be left to the jury to decide on the evidence, therefore the conviction is quashed and a retrial ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAM CHEUK NGAI

HKSAR v. CHUI KWOK KEUNG AND ANOTHER

R. v. TSANG CHI FAI

R. v. YAN WAI CHUNG

R. v. EMEKA JOE UDEOJI

YIM PO-LIN v. THE QUEEN