Valerie Tang secures Acquittal for Defendant charged with Assisting in Export of Unmanifested Cargo and Animal Cruelty
Criminal Law
After a 4-day trial, the 2nd Defendant in HKSAR v Wong Man Chin & Ors (ESCC 2555/2024 and ESS 1242/2024) was acquitted of two charges, being (1) assisting in the export of unmanifested cargo (section 18A of Import and Export Ordinance, Cap.60), and (2) animal cruelty (section 3 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, Cap.169).
Valerie Tang appeared for the successful Defendant.
Facts
The 1st and 2nd Defendants were acquaintances whereas the 3rd Defendant was a van driver (D1-3).
In around 2024, D1 invited D2 for dinner. The dinner was also attended by a friend of D1’s, whom D2 did not personally know. After the dinner, the said friend invited D1 and D2 for a joyride, and D3 was the driver in question. D1 and D2 did not know D3.
Eventually, the van arrived at a park at Ap Lei Chau, and goods were allegedly observed to have been conveyed by some individuals from the van to various trolleys, and then towards the pier nearby onto a speedboat. Upon the Customs and Excise Department (C&E) operation turning overt, several individuals successfully fled via the speedboat, whereas D1 to D3 were arrested near the scene.
Various goods were seized at the scene, including 3,014 live turtles, hippopotamus ivory and 500 boxes of animal prescription medication. Upon examination, the turtles were found to have been suffering from various ailments such as dehydration and skin infection.
D1 to D3 were all charged with assisting in the export of unmanifested cargo (“Charge 1”) and animal cruelty (“Charge 2”). The Prosecution called 7 witnesses from C&E. D1 testified whereas D2 and D3 exercised their rights not to give evidence.
Court’s Findings
In acquitting D2, Magistrate Kestrel Lam rejected the evidence of PW1, who was the only C&E observation officer who purportedly witnessed the actions of D1 to D3.
Upon cross-examination, PW1 admitted, among others, that the alleged individuals involved entered a fire lane in the park from which his sight was obstructed, and that he could not be sure whether the individuals who entered were the same as those who exited the said lane. PW1 also admitted that his evidence – such as newly divulged details at trial relating to the clothing of the individuals he allegedly observed – was in fact based on photos taken after the Defendants were arrested. In this regard, it is notable that no ID parade was ever carried out, and hence PW1 never positively identified the Defendants whether during the arrest or afterwards at the C&E offices.
In view of the inconsistencies in and limitations of PW1’s evidence, the learned Magistrate took the view that PW1’s evidence was unreliable.
Given that the other C&E witnesses did not in fact observe the acts of the alleged individuals, the learned Magistrate proceeded to rule that there was simply no evidence that D2 did commit Charge 1. Although D2 did admit under caution that he took the van and went to the offence location that evening, the learned Judge noted that there was no confession and there was nothing showing that D2 did help to convey the goods in question. It was also not possible to exclude the possibility that there may have been other individuals in the park at the material time.
As there was no evidence to prove Charge 1, the learned Magistrate held that Charge 2 in relation to the turtles also could not stand. In any event, the learned Magistrate was of the view that even if D2 did move any of the goods, there was simply no evidence that D2 was moving the turtles specifically (instead of the other goods involved in the alleged smuggling operation).
D2 was acquitted of both charges.
Valerie Tang was instructed by the Duty Lawyer Service.
Valerie Tang
“Valerie is quick-witted, articulate in her advocacy and very knowledgeable with a sharp legal intuition. She is definitely a rising star in the legal industry and one to look out for.”
Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2025, Commercial Disputes, Rising Star
Valerie was called to the Hong Kong Bar in 2019. She enjoys a broad civil practice with a special focus on company and commercial law. Valerie is also well-versed in family law, and has experience in land, probate, personal injuries, employment and mental health-related matters.
Prior to obtaining her law degree from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Valerie read International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Valerie is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin, and she accepts instructions in all areas of work.
More details can be found in Valerie’s profile.
This article was first published on 3 July 2025.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.