Lau Hue Wan v The Queen

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Judgment Date29 January 1968
Judgement NumberCACC683/1967
Year1968
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACC000683/1967 LAU HUE WAN v. THE QUEEN

CACC000683/1967

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.683 OF 1967

(On Appeal from Case No.2 of November, 1967 Session)

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

Between:
Lau Hue-wan Appellant

AND
The Queen Respondent

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

Coram: Rigby, S.P.J., Blair-Kerr and Mills-Owens, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 29 January 1968

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was alleged to be the tenant of a flat and was charged on indictment with four counts: (1) possession of a quantity of heroin found in a bedroom in the flat; (2) possession of a quantity of heroin found in another room of the flat, being a room in which heroin was being unlawfully manufactured; (3) permitting or suffering the storage in the latter room of the heroin found therein; (4) permitting or suffering that room to be used for such manufacture. She was convicted by the verdict of the jury on Counts 1 and 4 and acquitted on Counts 2 and 3.

2. Having heard her appeal against conviction on Court 4, and having allowed the same, we now give our reasons therefor. The only ground put forward on her behalf was that the trial judge misdirected the jury, in respect of that count, when he said: -

"So again on the fourth charge, the burden of proof lies on the Crown, as in all criminal cases, and unless you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they have proved their case, she is entitled to an acquittal. There is no suggestion here of any presumption, and not only that, if you think that it is probable that she did not know that the place was being used as a manufacture of dangerous drugs, if you think that it is probable, then you are to give her the benefit of the doubt."

3. Early in his summing-up the learned judge told the jury, quite correctly of course, that it was for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but that in respect of the two possession counts (Counts 1 and 2) the law raised a presumption, dependent on whether she was proved to have had possession of the keys to the room referred to in Court 1, and the keys of the flat, respectively. Coming to Counts 3 and 4, he correctly told the jury (at p.11 of the summing-up) that the burden of proof lay entirely on the Crown and that she did not have to prove her innocence. When he came to deal with count 3 in more detail, however, he said (at p.13): -

"Now she has gone into the witness box and given evidence on oath, and you must consider her evidence and must consider the evidence of the whole set-up of the flat before coming to your conclusion. You must remember that this is a charge where no presumption arises. The Crown have to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and when considering the defence, which is that she says that anyway she was not the tenant or occupier of the flat and (2) she did not know the existence of those drugs in those two places, then when you consider that defence, though you are not convinced of it, if you think that it is probable that she may be right, then you should give her the benefit of the doubt and acquit."

As she was acquitted on Count 3 no complaint is made of this passage. The passage complained of, which we have quoted earlier, in respect of the 4th count, was the final passage of the summing-up (at p.14), being followed merely by a request to the jury to consider their verdict and a short reference to the admissibility of a majority verdict. The learned judge concluded by asking counsel whether there was anything that they would like him to put to the jury, receiving a negative answer from counsel for the prosecution and from counsel then appearing for the defence...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT