HKSAR V Liu Mingsheng

DCCC 830/2025

[2026] HKDC 1525

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 830 OF 2025

------------------------------

------------------------------

---------------------------------------

REASONS FOR VERDICT

---------------------------------------

1.The defendant (D) pleaded not guilty to the charge of ‘behaving in a disorderly manner on board an aircraft’ contrary to section 12B(3) and 12B(10) of the Aviation Security Ordinance, Cap 494.

Overview

2.It is alleged that D, during the flight from Bangkok heading to Hong Kong, stole Hong Kong dollar currencies and Philippine pesos belonging to another passenger from the latter’s bag placed in the overhead compartment in the cabin. The incident was said to have been witnessed by the niece of the victim sitting nearby. D was arrested by the police upon the aircraft landing at the Hong Kong International Airport.

3.The prosecution called 3 witnesses in the trial. There was not any half time submission at the conclusion of the Prosecution’s case, and I ruled that D had a case to answer.

4.D testified in the trial and called no other witness. In gist, he stated that he had opened the overhead compartment during the flight to take some medicine from his own brown bag. He denied having stolen from the victim’s bag.

5.The issue, therefore, mainly lies on whether the observation by the niece of the victim in respect of D’s actions on board the flight was credible and reliable.

The prosecution case

6.The subject flight TG600 (“the Flight”) departed from Bangkok and landed in Hong Kong on 23 March 2025. The seating plan and passenger booking record of the Flight (“P3”) were admitted as evidence pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221. According to P3, the seat number of D was 44H in the Flight.

7.Mr M Skander (“PW1”), travelling with his niece (“PW2”) and the son of PW2, was on board of the Flight. He stated that his seat number was 23K, though he was not too sure about this. He, however, confirmed that he had not changed any seat during the Flight. 

8.After boarding the aircraft, PW1 put his hand-carry luggage, a bag of brand name Babila (“the Babila bag”) in the overhead compartment above his seat. The Babila bag is of the size of a laptop and depicted in photo no. 7 of the photo album, exhibit P5. PW1 stated that inside the Babila bag, there were his passport, 2 mobile phones and 2 wallets, one of which contained about 29,000 Philippine Pesos while the other wallet contained about HKD6500, all in the denomination of HKD500 notes. 

9.PW1 fell asleep afterwards until he was woken up by PW2. PW2 told him that someone had taken the money from his Babila bag. PW1 checked the Babila bag and found that there was no money in his wallets. He then alerted the air hostess. Before he was attended by any crew member, someone threw some money at him from behind. He found that to be 29,000 Pesos and HKD3,500, though he was unable to see who had thrown him the monies. He also said that PW2 had returned to her seat after she had alerted him of the matter.

10.PW2 and her 6-year-old son were seated at 44C and 44B respectively during the Flight. Her seat was an aisle seat and she said PW1 was sitting at 43J. She was shown the seating plan P3 and marked on a copy of which the respective seats occupied by herself and PW1 (P3A). She was able to see PW1 from her seat. 

11.During the Flight, PW2 saw a Chinese man at 44H, who was sitting in the row of seats behind PW1, opened the overhead compartment above PW1 with his left hand and took out the Babila bag. PW1 was sleeping in his seat, and she saw the man put the bag on his lap and take out some cash and the mobile phone from it. The man then put the bag back in the same place and the incident lasted some 45 seconds. She then saw the man leaving his seat, walking towards the back of the aircraft and returning a while later. She also marked the seat of the man on P3A.

12.PW2 said she was sitting during the observation, and her vision was not blocked. The lighting in the aircraft was dim, but it was sufficient for her to see clearly. The distance between her and the man was about 4.8 meters. She said this occurred after the cabin crew had collected the meal trays and about 45 minutes before landing of the Flight.

13.PW2 further said that she walked towards PW1 to alert him. They reported the matter to the cabin crew and the man behind threw some money back to PW1.

14.After landing, some police came inside the cabin, and PW2 told the police who the man was. The man was taken outside the aircraft.

15.Under cross examination, PW2 was asked about some discrepancies between certain parts of her testimony in court and her witness statements. She corrected herself and confirmed that what had been recorded in the statements was accurate, which included:

• the alleged theft occurred before the delivery of meals;

• she saw the man opening the overhead compartment with his right hand;

• she was standing up to observe the man when the latter was tampering with PW1’s bag; and

• she indeed left PW1’s seat after alerting PW1 of the alleged theft and was informed by PW1 later that some bank notes were thrown to him from behind.

PW2 explained that her recollection of things may have been affected by the lapse of time.

16.PW2 also explained that she did not raise the attention of PW1 and/or the cabin crew as soon as she saw the man tampering with PW1's belongings, as she was in panic and would not want to cause alarm to other passengers. She, therefore, approached and checked with PW1 first. 

17.After landing in Hong Kong, PC25351 (“PW3”) and other police officers boarded the aircraft. PW3 arrested D2. D was sitting at seat 44H and PW3 took D out of the aircraft. PW3 then approached PW1 who was sitting at seat 43J. Outside the aircraft, PW2 pointed out D to him to be the person alleged to have taken PW1’s belongings. 

Defence case

18.Upon the close of the prosecution’s case and my ruling that there was a case to answer in respect of the charge, D elected to testify.  

19.D, now aged 60, has a clear criminal record. He is married with 2 grown-up children and resides in Henan Province in the Mainland. He is a security guard by occupation. 

20.D said he had flown from Hong Kong to Bangkok on 21 March 2025. He was invited by his former supervisor, Mr Zhang, who was operating a hostel in Bangkok, for a visit and D stayed there for 2 days.  

21.D said he took a black rucksack and a brown bag on board the Flight. The brown bag was about 40 cm in length and 30 cm in height. He put both items in the overhead compartment above his seat, which was 44H. Sometime after taking off, when the crew was about to deliver meals to the passengers, he opened the overhead compartment to take out his brown bag to get some medication. He then asked for a bottle of water from the crew, and the meal was then served on him. He said he had left his seat once to go to the toilet before getting his medication from his bag. He denied having taken out PW1’s Babila bag and stole PW1’s belongings.

Analysis of the evidence

22.First of all, I remind myself that the Prosecution bears the burden to prove the requisite elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.  D does not have to prove anything.  D has no criminal conviction record, and I give myself the relevant good character directions in respect of his credibility and propensity.

23.As D elected to testify, I must consider his evidence before reaching the verdict. If what D said is true or may be true, he must then be acquitted.

24.As previously stated, the main issue is whether the identification, including the man's actions, made by PW2 was credible and reliable. She was the only person witnessing the allegation against D. I direct myself in accordance with the principles established in R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224. I warn myself of the special need for caution before convicting D in reliance on the evidence of identification. I remind myself to look at the quality of the identification and all the circumstances in which the identification was made and in so doing look for any specific weaknesses, which have appeared in the identification evidence.  I am fully aware of the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing witness.

25.The features of PW2’s identification of D are highlighted below:

• PW2 and D did not know each other.

• While the distance between PW2 and D was about 4.8 meters, according to the seating plan marked by PW2 (P3A), the space separating PW2’s seat at 44C and that of D at 44H comprised 2 aisles and three seats at 44D, 44E and 44F;

• PW2 said she was standing up while observing D (although her original version in Court was that she was sitting) and that her view of D was not blocked, but there is no evidence as to whether there were any passengers between them.

• The lighting on board was dim, and PW2 said she was able to see, though not very clearly.

• The incident lasted about 45 seconds, though PW2 stated that she had observed D for some minutes. D then left his seat for a while after putting the bag back inside the overhead compartment.

• There was apparently a time lapse between PW2’s observation of the alleged theft and the time she said D had returned to his seat. It is, however, unclear from the evidence as to the length of time in between.

26.Apart from the quality of the identification evidence, it is also noted that PW2 did not immediately alert anyone upon seeing D taking money out the Babila bag. Besides, the prosecution did not lead evidence as to whether there was other person(s) opening the compartment or laying hands on the Babila bag during the time gap between PW2’s alleged sight of D and the time when PW1 confirmed that some of his properties had gone missing.

27.Against this background, D put forward his version of what had happened while he was on board. As mentioned above, if what he said is true or may be true, he must be acquitted.

28.The main crux of D’s version of the events on board of the Flight was not challenged under cross examination, in particular:

• D’s claim of leaving his seat to visit the toilet before taking out his bag, and that this was the only occasion he had left his seat during the Flight;

• His assertion of opening the overhead compartment upon his return to take out his brown bag for retrieving his medication;

• D’s subsequent request for some water for taking the medication and;

• Meal was then served and he had not left his seat from that time until the landing of the plane.

29.Obviously, the fact that D was not crossed-examined does not mean that I have to accept his account as true (see HKSAR v Z FAMC 68/2011 at paragraph 4). However, in this case, after considering all the evidence, I cannot rule out the possibility that the defence version may be true for the reasons given below.

30.In my view, what the defendant said is not implausible, that is, opening the compartment to retrieve some medication from his bag. This series of actions was what a person would normally do if he had to get his belongings. There was no suggestion from the prosecution that any of it was untrue except by putting to D that he was the one who took the property to which D denied. Furthermore, there was nothing to show otherwise in respect of D's claim that the size of his bag was comparable to the Babila bag. This is not immaterial because if D's bag is of a similar size, it renders PW2's identification of D taking the Babila bag more prone to errors because of the dim light in the cabin and the distance apart.

31.In short, taking into account D’s evidence which was not much cross-examined, and which did not disclose any inherent improbability, coupled with the apparent weaknesses in the quality of the identification evidence, namely:

• the layout of the aircraft in respect of the space between her and D;

• the dim lighting inside the aircraft;

• PW2’s initial evidence that she was sitting while making the observation vis-a-vis the corrected version of standing; and

• PW2’s lack of immediate response when seeing the cash and mobile phone being taken out from the Babila bag, which response begs the question as to whether one was then sure of what she said she saw at the time;

I cannot rule out the possibility that what D said may be true.

32.Given the state of the evidence, the benefit of the doubt must go to D.

33.The prosecution is unable to prove to the requisite standard that D took the monies inside PW1’s Babila bag, not to mention the subsequent throwing of banknotes to PW1, while on board of the aircraft, thus behaving in a disorderly manner. He is duly acquitted of the charge.