香港特別行政區 訴 香港工商清潔服務有限公司

香港特別行政區 訴 香港工商清潔服務有限公司

The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed because the trial judge's manner and extent of questioning crossed the permissible bounds and created a perception that he had joined the adversarial role, thereby rendering the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe; this procedural unfairness alone justified...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3362
Parties
Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Appellant: 香港工商清潔服務有限公司
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 November 2022
Case Number
HCMA153/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Appeal to Court of First Instance (conviction Appeal Hearing)
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed and fine set aside
Legal Topics
Employer Duty of Care, Workplace Safety Regulations, Judicial Impartiality and Conduct, Appellate Review Standards
Source Language
ch
Criminal Law Occupational Safety and Health Administrative Law (judicial Conduct) Employer Duty of Care Workplace Safety Regulations Judicial Impartiality and Conduct Appellate Review Standards

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Respondent

香港工商清潔服務有限公司

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Conviction Appeal / Appeal to Court of First Instance (conviction Appeal Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer failed to provide and maintain a system of work that was safe and without risks to health within the range of reasonable practicability
  2. 2 Whether the employer failed to provide necessary information, instruction and supervision to ensure employee safety
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's extensive questioning rendered the trial unfair by joining the adversarial role ('joining the fighting arena') making the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed because the trial judge's manner and extent of questioning crossed the permissible bounds and created a perception that he had joined the adversarial role, thereby rendering the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe; this procedural unfairness alone justified overturning the conviction notwithstanding the underlying evidential issues about safety systems.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed and fine set aside

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • fine of HK$20000 set aside