Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Receiving stolen property

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2012

HKSAR v. CHENG CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC94/2011

The Court held the totality of evidence established the applicant as a professional handler (fence) rather than the thief; the doctrine of recent possession does not displace consideration of all evidence and does not impose an extra burden on prosecution to prove the negative element 'otherwise than in the course of stealing'; leave to appeal conviction was dismissed. On review under section 81A the Court found aggravating factors warranted increasing the starting point to 5 years per count and the total effective sentence to 5 years 6 months (with six months of the fifth count consecutive).
15 Jun 2007

HKSAR v. LAM YUI YIU

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM YUI YIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC373/2006

Given the planning, seriousness, public danger from an uninsured stolen taxi fitted with false plates and the need for deterrence, a sentence of four years imprisonment imposed after trial was not manifestly excessive and was upheld.
11 Mar 2003

HKSAR v. WONG KIT LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KIT LING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC411/2002

The Court held the trial judge's acceptance of prosecution evidence was supported by ample evidence (bank records, teller testimony and recorded calls), thus convictions were upheld; sentencing fell within established guidelines for amounts involved and was not manifestly excessive, so both leave applications were dismissed.
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.
10 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. PHAM THI TAM

Citation

HKSAR v. PHAM THI TAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1062/1998

On the admitted facts the appellant actively participated in the offence and there was insufficient evidence she acted under the influence of her common law husband; childcare responsibilities did not present compelling humanitarian circumstances to reduce the sentence; the magistrate had given credit for the guilty plea and the nine month sentence was within the applicable guidelines, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
19 May 1975

LEE CHUN MING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEE CHUN MING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC80/1975

Convictions were upheld because confession statements and admissions were sufficient; however the appellate court reduced concurrent sentences to correct excessive totality when earlier sentences not taken into account by trial judge produced an excessive cumulative term, resulting in a total effective sentence of ten years for the first appellant.
18 May 1970

CHAN CHUN WA v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN CHUN WA v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC802/1969

Although the learned judge erred in admitting evidence repeating excluded recorded statements, the defence elicited admissible evidence showing the appellant was in recent possession of two stolen watches without satisfactory explanation; under the doctrine of recent possession this supported the inference of theft and justified upholding the conviction for robbery with aggravation, and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Aug 1969

HEUNG TAK HUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HEUNG TAK HUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC399/1969

The conviction of the second appellant was upheld because the trial judge properly admitted the written confession as voluntary and its contents were corroborated by identification and other evidence; the order for twelve months police supervision against the first appellant was set aside because it was not yet necessary for public security; the third appellant's sentence of eighteen months was affirmed as appropriate.
13 Dec 1968

TANG WING SANG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TANG WING SANG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC715/1968

The court will not interfere with a magistrate's sentence merely because it might have imposed a different sentence; interference is limited to cases where the sentencing was wrong in principle or so manifestly excessive that it could not have been imposed by a judge acting on right principles. Applying that standard, the sentences in this case were not excessive and the appeals are dismissed.