HKSAR v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LTD

HKSAR v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LTD

The appeal was dismissed: the court held that there is no established common law defence to the specified Regulations (and in any event the Appellant did not prove such a defence on the facts); the magistrate properly assessed credibility (demeanour in context) and the convictions, fines and costs were within...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LTD
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO. LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 June 2003
Case Number
HCMA251/2003
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (regulatory/criminal) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in full
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Common Law Defence, Mens Rea, Appeal Against Conviction, Sentence and Costs
Source Language
en
Construction Safety Law Criminal Law Regulatory Offences Occupational Health and Safety Strict Liability Common Law Defence Mens Rea Appeal Against Conviction +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO. LTD

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (regulatory/criminal) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a common law defence of honest and reasonable belief is available to offences under the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (Reg 43(b) and Reg 51)
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate improperly relied solely on demeanour in disbelieving defence witnesses
  3. 3 Whether the evidence establishes the asserted defence on the balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed: the court held that there is no established common law defence to the specified Regulations (and in any event the Appellant did not prove such a defence on the facts); the magistrate properly assessed credibility (demeanour in context) and the convictions, fines and costs were within sentencing discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in full

Orders

  • Convictions on both charges upheld
  • Each summons: fine of HK$15,000 and costs of HK$2,500 (per charge)