Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession for sale

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2022

香港特別行政區訴曹俊

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 349
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA425/2020

The appellate court held the convictions were safe: the prosecution proved all elements of the offences under Cap.362 beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies (absence of black tape in P5 and correction to P48) were satisfactorily explained and did not break the chain of custody or create reasonable doubt; the trial judge’s acceptance of witnesses and the appellant's oral admission was reasonable and will not be disturbed on appeal.
23 Apr 2020

香港特別行政區訴曾少寶及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 612
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA299/2019

A2's conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to analyse and distinguish the statutory defences under s26 and s26AAB and applied an incorrect/overly demanding assessment of 'reasonable diligence' and insufficiently considered evidence favourable to A2 (including mixed results of seized goods and meeting notes); therefore quashing the conviction was just. A1's refusal of costs was overturned because the trial judge lacked positive reasons to deny costs and failed properly to treat A1's cautioned statements and available favourable evidence; A1 is entitled to trial costs but not two…
2 Apr 2012

香港特別行政區訴梁蔚邦

Citation

香港特別行政區訴梁蔚邦
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA336/2011

The trial judge erred in finding there was no evidence to engage Trade Marks Ordinance s20(1); defence exhibit D3 raised a real question that the goods may be parallel imports, and the prosecution therefore failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the goods carried forged trademarks or that possession of P2 was for sale; accordingly the convictions were unsafe and were quashed.
16 Nov 2009

HKSAR v. YEUNG MING CHU

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG MING CHU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA392/2009

The appellate court allowed the appeal because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had custody or control of the goods, knew they were counterfeit or intended possession for sale; the primary facts did not lead to the only irresistible inference of guilt and the magistrate erred in excluding other reasonable explanations.
25 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. CHAU YUET SEUNG, CANDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU YUET SEUNG, CANDY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA632/2006

The appeal is dismissed because the trial magistrate correctly exercised her discretion in admitting and accepting PW1 as an expert despite inconsistencies and late documentary authorization; letters of authorization are relevant to weight not admissibility; any omission to state a good character warning was not prejudicial under Fok Tin Yau; the magistrate's acceptance of PW1's evidence supported conviction beyond reasonable doubt that the goods bore forged MUGEN trademarks.
8 Mar 2006

HKSAR v. LAU LAP KIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU LAP KIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA991/2005

The High Court held that the prominent application of the counterfeit 'Beautyrest' mark on mattresses constituted an (indirect) indication of the manufacturer within the statutory definition of 'trade description', was false to a material degree, and therefore satisfied the offence under section 7(1)(b); the appellants, as directors exercising control and having knowledge of the promotional exercise, were in possession and the section 26 defence was not established.
10 May 2000

HKSAR v. TSUI CHING WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. TSUI CHING WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA209/2000

The magistrate erred by applying the Court of Appeal decision in Lam Wah which post‑dated the offence; sentencing must be governed by the law and guidelines prevailing at the time of the offence, and on that basis the appropriate penalty was a fine rather than immediate imprisonment.
7 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. MA KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. MA KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA369/1999

The court held that a forged trade mark that becomes apparent when pirated CD ROMs are used on adapted consoles is properly treated as having been "applied" to the discs under s9(2) of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance; the appellant failed to show he took reasonable enquiries to negate knowledge and therefore the conviction in the first case was upheld; however the conviction in the second case was quashed because the refusal to adjourn and the effective denial of counsel of choice and preparation time rendered that trial unfair and the conviction unsafe; the first-case sentence was set aside…
1 May 1998

HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR11/1997

The Court held the original fines were manifestly inadequate, applied the accepted guideline of approximately 30% of the goods' value for substantial consignments where the offender pleaded guilty early, declined to impose a custodial sentence as the respondent was apparently a first offender, and substituted aggregate fines of HK$324,174 with three months to pay.
9 Jan 1997

R. v. HO CHI WAI

Citation

R. v. HO CHI WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1402/1996

The appellate court held that the Training Centre Order was excessive given the offences were not of the most serious kind and there had been no assessment of the degree of obscenity. A Detention Centre Order, providing short, sharp disciplinary treatment, was the more proportionate and appropriate order for rehabilitation in the circumstances; accordingly the Training Centre Order was set aside and substituted with a Detention Centre Order.