Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of controlled drugs

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2022

香港特別行政區訴呂鳳宝

Citation

[2022] HKCA 161
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC74/2021

Leave to appeal was granted on grounds (1) and (4) because both raise arguable points: (1) that the trial judge may have misdirected the jury by involving reliability at the wrong stage when considering cautioned statements (Mushtag issue), and (4) that there is a real issue whether the appellant possessed the drugs in the trunk given the facts; leave was refused on (2) and (3) because the contested remarks were explanatory comments on evidence or legitimate separations of issues by the trial judge and did not constitute reversible misdirection.
10 Sept 2019

香港特別行政區訴梁志文

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1048
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC277/2017

The trial judge did not err: the utterance was admissible and the judge properly directed the jury on its possible meanings; there was no sufficient evidence of police coercion or improper methods to require exclusion or an in‑trial voir dire; the directions on cash and exclusion of phone/phone card evidence were appropriate and not prejudicial. Accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
23 Jul 2019

香港特別行政區訴黃子琛（又名巫子琛）

Citation

[2019] HKCA 823
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC170/2018

Although the trial evidence (opening the door, sole possession of 14 drug units, large cash sum, paraphernalia and presence of many users) could suffice to infer operation and possession for supply in the absence of an explanation, there was a realistic basis to conclude the trial judge's remarks may have misled the applicant into silence and thereby compromised fairness; accordingly leave to appeal against the convictions on counts 1 and 2 was granted (limited to the grounds raised).
24 Jul 2018

香港特別行政區訴藍順財

Citation

[2018] HKCA 388
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2017

The trial judge’s directions were comprehensive and balanced: he correctly treated police assertions about typical suspect behaviour as opinion, warned the jury to consider innocent explanations for nervousness, and did not improperly invite disbelief of the defendant; on the facts the conviction was safe.
24 Feb 2014

HKSAR v. CHOW WING WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW WING WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC107/2013

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's directions were adequate, the defence case was fairly put to the jury, the jury could properly infer residence and trafficking from the totality of evidence, and instances of inappropriate prosecutorial advocacy, while censured, did not produce a real danger of unfairness sufficient to overturn the convictions.
30 Sept 2010

HKSAR v. YIU CHAN HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YIU CHAN HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC462/2009

The court held that the trial judge’s 100% enhancement of the starting point for the possession offence was excessive and reduced the enhancement to 3 months (producing an 8‑month sentence on charge 1 after plea credit); the court also held no Newton enquiry was required because the agreed facts and circumstances allowed resolution of the self‑consumption issue, and adjusted concurrency to order 4 months concurrent on charge 1 resulting in a total sentence of 3 years 5 months imprisonment.
20 Sept 2007

LI SIU HING v. HKSAR

Citation

LI SIU HING v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC32/2007

Because the applicant had made statements inconsistent with his later defence, the judge's direction permitting the jury to consider the explanation for late mention of a medical certificate did not violate the right of silence and the application for leave to appeal disclosed no substantial and grave injustice and was dismissed.
26 Jun 2003

HKSAR v. FONG HOI WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. FONG HOI WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA483/2003

The court held that while a custodial sentence was inevitable given the appellant's long history of drug offending and unsuitability for non-custodial disposals, the appellant's unusually long period without reoffending since 1997 together with his ill-health justified a modest additional reduction; the eight month sentence was reduced to six months imprisonment.
27 May 2003

HKSAR v. HO YET HAN DAPHNE

Citation

HKSAR v. HO YET HAN DAPHNE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC631/2002

The court held that no lies direction was required on the facts: the prosecution did not invite the jury to treat any lie as independent evidence of guilt, the ordinary directions on burden and standard of proof and credibility were sufficient, and there was no risk that rejection of the defence would inevitably compel conviction; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.
13 May 2003

HKSAR v. LEUNG YUI KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG YUI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA322/2003

Given the appellant's extensive history of drug offences, unsuitability for DATC and status as a multiple offender, the magistrate was entitled to adopt a 12‑month starting point and, after allowing credit for the guilty plea, impose an eight‑month term; that sentence was not excessive and the appeal is dismissed.