Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and knowledge

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴聶明麗

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA370/2023

Although the trial judge misstated the s.26AAB evidential standard, the court on re-hearing found the totality of evidence — expert reports showing visibly poor workmanship on many shoes, appellant's control of premises and keys, signing of delivery documents, receipt of payments, and involvement in packing/dispatch — established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew of or had reasonable grounds to suspect the goods bore counterfeit trademarks and was in possession of the exhibits; appeal dismissed and convictions upheld.
5 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. CHANG CHING LAM

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1339
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC10/2022

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised were matters properly for the jury, the evidence adduced supported the conviction, and the judge gave a full and fair summing-up including an appropriate lies direction in accordance with guidance, so there was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal.
31 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. AMARJIT

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1252
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC172/2019

Where flight evidence is ancillary to a central, sharply contested factual issue (here whether the appellant alighted holding two bags visibly containing drugs) and the jury received an adequate Liberato direction such that a reasonable doubt on that issue would have led to acquittal, the omission to give a full flight direction was not a material irregularity; if material, the proviso would apply because the verdict would inevitably have been the same.
21 Jul 2022

HKSAR v. WONG WING YI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2269
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC196/2021

Taken at its highest and assuming admissibility, the prosecution evidence did not establish a prima facie case that the 2nd defendant possessed, had custody or control of the drugs or that she knew the parcel contained dangerous drugs; joint enterprise could not cure the absence of evidence of knowledge beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused must be discharged under s16 and not arraigned.
3 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴呂俊傑

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1868
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC59/2019

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge gave full, fair and adequate directions on the key issue of knowledge based on environment evidence and credibility, the prosecution evidence supported the sole reasonable inference of knowledge and possession, and the applicant's grounds did not disclose any arguable basis to overturn conviction; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
22 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. CHUNG YIU LAM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 153
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC154/2016

The judge's directions risked misleading the jury into thinking that criticised witnesses or police evidence could not constitute direct evidence and mischaracterised key circumstantial facts as direct evidence; that created a real danger the jury misassessed the applicant's testimony and thus the conviction was unsafe, requiring quashing and a retrial.
12 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. YAN SIN MAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 582
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC19/2018

The notebook entries and mobile‑phone photographs could not be admitted to prove the truth of the implied assertions that transactions occurred or that the defendant trafficked because there was insufficient evidence that she made or knew the contents of those records; absent proof of maker or awareness, admitting them for those substantive purposes would breach the hearsay rule, so they were excluded for that purpose though possession of such records may have limited evidentiary use if knowledge is established.
15 Jul 2015

HKSAR v. NGAI HA ALSO KNOWN AS SO YUEN CHU

Citation

HKSAR v. NGAI HA ALSO KNOWN AS SO YUEN CHU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC107/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's credibility findings in favour of the police were unimpeached, the applicant's admissions were properly admitted as voluntary, the circumstantial evidence (quantity, packaging, value, venue and her management role) supported an inference of trafficking rather than personal use, the sentencing judge applied the correct individual approach and totality principle, and no reasonably arguable grounds with prospects of success were identified.
27 Feb 2015

HKSAR v. TSANG MAN KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG MAN KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC234/2013

Leave to appeal out of time is refused because the applicant provided no good reason for the nearly six month delay under the statutory time limit; on the merits the contested grounds lacked substance because (a) the challenged answers were invited by defence cross-examination and the judge's summing up adequately protected the right to silence, (b) the directions on drawing inferences, read as a whole, did not mislead the jury, and (c) any suggestion of Ms Chung's complicity did not render the conviction unsafe given the totality of directions and trial context.
21 Dec 2012

HKSAR v. JOSHUA CHUKWUDI PHILIP

Citation

HKSAR v. JOSHUA CHUKWUDI PHILIP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC363/2011

The Court refused leave to appeal because the evidence allowed the jury to draw the only reasonable inference that the applicant knew the parcel contained cocaine; the cautioned interview was admissible and fairly presented to the jury; alleged irregularities lacked substance or did not affect fairness; the summing-up properly directed the jury, so no arguable miscarriage of justice was shown.