← All Authorities
Hong Kong Leading Case bill of rights ordinancereverse burdensconvention rights

Sin Kam Wah v HKSAR

(2005) 8 HKCFAR 192
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2005
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Statutory presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance imposing a legal burden on the accused must be read down to an evidential burden to comply with the right to a fair trial under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

Key Principle

dangerous drugs; presumptions under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance; burden of proof; constitutional challenge

Area of Law

criminal

Related Cases

Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123

Appellate court must itself assess whether jury verdict was unreasonable where unchallenged opportunity evidence raised reasonable doubt as to guilt.

Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (2020) 272 CLR 177

Search warrant executed at journalist's home held invalid for technical defects; High Court considered scope of implied freedom of political communication but declined to quash the warrant on that basis.

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57

The High Court considered the Browne v Dunn rule and the appropriate jury directions when a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a matter it intends to contradict.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Sin Kam Wah v HKSAR and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Sin Kam Wah v HKSAR