Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Simple possession

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. WONG WAI WAH

Citation

[2025] HKCA 240
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC88/2024

Leave was refused on Ground 1 because the trial judge's description of the applicant's cautioned statements as not 'trustworthy' was a factual finding about the reliability of that evidence, not a legal misdirection or imposition of a burden; leave was granted on Grounds 2,3 and 4 and against sentence because it is reasonably arguable that the conviction for trafficking (rather than simple possession) and the adequacy of sentence raise arguable issues for full appeal.
11 Oct 2018

HKSAR v. YIU HUNG KUK

Citation

[2018] HKCA 701
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC122/2018

On the totality of the evidence — 7 grams of 100% pure methamphetamine, packaging in three small bags, the agreed street value inconsistent with the applicant's means, the presence of substantial cash and expert consumption evidence — the judge was entitled to infer possession was for trafficking; the sentence adopted was within applicable guidelines and the reduction for partial personal consumption was appropriate; accordingly leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence is refused.
24 Oct 2012

HKSAR v. AKHEMETZYANOVA, IRINA

Citation

HKSAR v. AKHEMETZYANOVA, IRINA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC194/2011

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial because the judge's summing-up contained a factual misrepresentation and a directive question that invited the jury to draw an impermissible inference (guilt by association) unsupported by the evidence; that error undermined confidence in the verdict despite the court finding the prosecution's presentation and other directions on trafficking were adequate overall.
31 Mar 2003

TSANG WAI MAN v. HKSAR

Citation

TSANG WAI MAN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2002

The trial judge improperly reversed the onus by treating the appellant's explanation as unbelievable despite no presumption; because it is not possible to conclude that proper assessment of the defence would nonetheless inevitably have led to conviction, the proviso could not be applied, and therefore the trafficking conviction was unsafe and was quashed and substituted with a conviction for simple possession; the original custodial sentence was set aside and a fine imposed with immediate release as time served.
23 Mar 1999

HKSAR v. LAI KAM SANG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KAM SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC578/1998

The trial judge erred by selecting a starting point above the accepted range for simple possession and by doubling the sentence for latent risk given the relatively small quantity; correct method is to adopt a starting point within the 1–18 month range (here 18 months), add a proportionate latent risk enhancement (12 months) and then apply the one-third guilty plea discount resulting in a 20 month sentence.
7 Oct 1998

HKSAR v. LUK YUN SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. LUK YUN SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC357/1998

Appeal allowed: the 1st and 2nd counts constituted the same trafficking lot and their sentences should run concurrently with a global sentence of 4 years; the 3rd count for simple possession of 21.21 g cannabis reduced to 3 years; the 4th count for possession of 160 midazolam tablets reduced to 1 month; apply guilty plea discount of roughly one third to the aggregate so that the total sentence is reduced from 6 years 1 month to 4 years 9 months; sentences for counts 3 and 4 to run consecutively to each other and to the concurrent sentences for counts 1 and 2.
12 Sept 1997

HKSAR v. LAM WAI IP

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM WAI IP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC214/1997

The Court held that the proper starting point for simple possession of the quantities in this case was three years and, applying the customary one-third discount for the plea, the appropriate sentence was two years; the original sentence of three years and four months was manifestly excessive and was reduced to two years imprisonment.
10 Feb 1995

R. v. LEE SIU LUNG

Citation

R. v. LEE SIU LUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC529/1994

The judge erred by indicating he accepted that some of the seized drugs were for a purpose other than personal consumption and sentencing on that basis; while latent risk may be considered, it cannot be used to effectively treat a simple possession case as trafficking, therefore the sentence on the first count was excessive and was reduced on appeal.
10 Aug 1989

THE QUEEN v. LAI SIK KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAI SIK KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC173/1989

The court held that an 18 month sentence for simple possession was excessive and that the proper sentence for the offence in isolation was nine months; the trial judge's invocation of the totality principle did not justify the higher term and the aggregate sentence did not require a further reduction beyond substituting nine months for the 18 month term.