Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and control

Legal area

Court

9 Oct 2024

HKSAR v. JAGROOP, SINGH

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3625
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA261/2024

On rehearing the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had control of Room 4 and knowledge of and possession of the cannabis found there; the key card, the appellant's consent and conduct in guiding police to the room and the presence of paraphernalia and quantity supported an inference of trafficking and the omission to record a search warrant did not undermine the prosecution case, therefore the convictions were upheld.
24 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. MD RAJIB

Citation

[2020] HKCA 532
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC223/2019

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused because the trial judge gave proper directions conforming to Specimen Directions, the jury issues were factual and properly left to the jury, and the sentence including a one year enhancement for the applicant's non-refoulement status was within the judge's discretion and consistent with established authorities.
15 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. WU KWOK KEE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1284
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC28/2019

The Court refused leave because the grounds advanced were not reasonably arguable: the trial judge fairly and comprehensively summed up the competing cases, the DNA and possession evidence linked the applicant to the waist bag and other items in the room, and the jury could properly infer knowledge and possession for trafficking.
9 Nov 2010

GOOD PROFIT METAL SURFACE TREATMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. KWOK KWONG YU, DAVID

Citation

GOOD PROFIT METAL SURFACE TREATMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. KWOK KWONG YU, DAVID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2237/2008

The parties had a well-established practice of treating HKD and RMB at par which was applied to the buy-out valuation; the Defendant accepted the valuation and cashed the cheque and therefore was paid in full on that basis; he had no legal right to retain the company’s accounting documents by way of lien because the company was not a party nor indebted to him; accordingly Plaintiffs succeed, counterclaim fails, and Defendant must return documents and indemnify for losses.
31 Mar 2009

HKSAR v. YEUNG KWOK MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG KWOK MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC224/2007

The Court held that the evidence (possession of the key, DNA on cigarette butts, admitted facts, similarity and packing of cartons, and admissions) permitted the jury to infer control and knowledge sufficient to uphold convictions on count 2; the trial judge's directions were adequate and the sentences (14 and 30 years concurrent) were not manifestly excessive given the quantities and sentencing authorities.
27 Jun 2001

HKSAR v. HO WAI LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. HO WAI LUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA415/2001

Exclusive control and unfettered use of stolen property for a substantial period, even if subject to an obligation to return it at an undefined future time, constitutes sufficient control to amount to receiving stolen goods; magistrate's finding of such control was correct and conviction stands.
30 Mar 1999

HKSAR v. LEE SIU HING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE SIU HING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA279/1999

Conviction was unsafe because the Magistrate's inference of possession was unsupported by the evidence: the appellant was absent at the raid, another person was arrested, and signing the business registration alone did not establish possession, control or knowledge of the infringing copies; accordingly the conviction was quashed and sentence set aside.
28 Jan 1999

HKSAR v. WONG KA KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KA KUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC35/1998

On the evidence of possession of a bag containing heroin, fingerprints inside the premises, possession of keys fitting the padlock and letterboxes, and attendant inferences properly directed, there was a prima facie case on Count 2 and the convictions for D1 were safe; the trial judge erred in principle in not giving D2 the full one‑third guilty plea discount, and the sentences for D2 are reduced accordingly.
3 Nov 1998

HKSAR v. CHAN PUI CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN PUI CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC706/1997

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's summing-up cured any potential prejudice from the 'target' remark, correctly instructed the jury on possession including that keys are only a factor, properly cautioned the jury about oral admissions after a voir dire and admissibility ruling, and the applicant's new factual points were late, unsubstantiated and not appropriate fresh evidence on appeal; therefore no miscarriage of justice was shown.
20 May 1997

R. v. WONG CHONG WAI

Citation

R. v. WONG CHONG WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/1997

The conviction was quashed because the judge's critical finding that the defendant's hand contamination must have occurred on the day of arrest was not supported by the admitted forensic evidence (which said nothing about duration or persistence of contamination) and that the fingerprint evidence was insufficient to make conviction inevitable; the untested agreed expert evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.