Read the full judgment text of CACC 000570/1997 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 February 1998 before Mayo JA, Stuart-Moore JA, Gall J.
Criminal law – Import and Export Ordinance (Cap 60) s.18A(1)(c) – dealing with cargo with intent to assist export without a manifest – false shipping documents describing left-hand drive vehicles as decoration boards – 17 LHD vehicles discovered in five containers on motor vessel Lucky Hover on 10 August 1995 – applicants connected with Hopewell Trading Company and related family businesses (D1 Director of Finance, D3 manager of Kowloon Bay office, D4 alleged principal receiving instructions from Mr. Wong Keung to procure and ship LHD vehicles to northern China) – whether prosecution must identify the person or persons being assisted under s.18A(1)(c) – held: no such requirement as it will rarely be feasible; obvious recipient in China would benefit from successful smuggling – sufficiency of evidence against D3 – whether judge erred in relying on inadmissible evidence regarding D2's personality – held: even excluding that evidence, other reasons given were sufficient to convict – whether judge erred in drawing inference from D3's use of a different signature on form P29 – held: peripheral evidence not affecting the outcome – District Judge's duty in giving Reasons for Verdict – whether judge must state she directed herself on lies – held: no necessity, citing R. v. Chan King-man [1980] HKLR 105 and the approach to lies in R. v. Chong Chak On [1995] 2 HKCLR 226 – adverse inferences from defendant's failure to testify – D4 did not enter the witness box – held: in absence of explanation adverse inferences could more readily be drawn where evidence supported doing so, following Lam Tsz-wah [1984] HKLR 54 and R. v. Sharmpal Singh [1962] AC 188 – sentence of 20 months' imprisonment on D1 – whether manifestly excessive compared to D4 – held: not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given D1's direct involvement in enquiries and loading – applications for leave to appeal against conviction by D1, D3 and D4 dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence by D1 dismissed.
Legal issues: Identification of person assisted under s.18A(1)(c) Import and Export Ordinance · Reliance on inadmissible evidence regarding D2's personality · Inference from D3's use of different signature on P29 · District Judge's duty to state self-direction on lies in Reasons for Verdict · Drawing adverse inferences against a defendant who does not testify · Whether 20-month sentence on D1 was manifestly excessive
Outcome: D1's application for leave to appeal against conviction withdrawn and dismissed; D3 and D4's applications for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; D1's application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed. Convictions of D1, D3 and D4 upheld; 20-month sentence of imprisonment on D1 upheld.
Cited by 3 cases