17 Jul 2007
The learned Magistrate permissibly found on the balance of probabilities that the seized vessel and other articles were connected with contraventions of the Import and Export Ordinance and that the claimant failed to prove he took basic steps to prevent the breach; the burden was not improperly shifted and forfeiture was therefore justified; appeal dismissed.
24 Jan 1989
Invitation cards addressed to a name that may be a Triad Society can fall within 'writing of or relating to' a Triad Society, but the Crown must prove that the possessor/custodian knew that the writing related to a Triad Society; the evidence here was insufficient to prove that the cards related to the Fuk Yee Hing Triad Society or that the defendant knew such relation, therefore conviction could not be sustained and defendant was acquitted.
30 Nov 1987
The appellant's intentional carrying of travel documents, on the evidence, was not capable in law or in fact of constituting an act of assistance or an appreciable contribution to the successful commission of the robbery; the trial judge's direction that 'encouragement' alone sufficed to convict as a principal was inappropriate given the indictment and evidence. Ground 1(iii) succeeds and the conviction is quashed.
6 Sept 1983
Convictions for manufacturing were quashed because the trial judge failed to direct the jury that the Crown must still prove knowledge independent of the statutory presumption and failed to explain properly the burden and standard of proof and the defendant's burden to rebut; those defects made the convictions unsafe and retrial on the manufacturing counts was ordered. The possession-for-trafficking conviction against Wu was upheld but the sentence was reduced from 12 to 10 years.
9 Jul 1982
No implied covenant against illegal or immoral use is to be implied in the oral monthly tenancy because necessity test not met and statutory s.33(1)(b) provides an independent remedy; s.33(1)(b) is to be read disjunctively so conviction of tenant is not the only route to recovery; however liability for 'suffer' or 'permit' requires actual knowledge or wilful blindness/grounds for reasonable suspicion and applicant failed to prove respondent had such knowledge, therefore possession claim dismissed.