HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

The offence under Regulation 38B(1) is one of strict liability given the public safety objective; PW2's evidence that there were no fences at the parapet provided a sufficient evidential basis for conviction; the defence did not adduce evidence of impracticability under Regulation 38H; therefore the magistrate's conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 August 2002
Case Number
HCMA376/2002
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Construction Site Safety, Regulation 38 B(1), Defence of Impracticability Under Regulation 38 H, Evidential Sufficiency
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Occupational Safety and Health Statutory Interpretation Strict Liability Construction Site Safety Regulation 38 B(1) Defence of Impracticability Under Regulation 38 H Evidential Sufficiency

Case Brief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the offence under Regulation 38B(1) is one of strict liability
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate misapprehended evidence so as to render the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution evidence established that there were no fences preventing a fall at the parapet

Ratio Decidendi

The offence under Regulation 38B(1) is one of strict liability given the public safety objective; PW2's evidence that there were no fences at the parapet provided a sufficient evidential basis for conviction; the defence did not adduce evidence of impracticability under Regulation 38H; therefore the magistrate's conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction affirmed