HKSAR v. SUN FOOK KONG HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. SUN FOOK KONG HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Magistrate's findings that the appellant knew or ought to have known that a suitable higher platform was required and that a system requiring an express request was insufficient under the Regulations were open to him on the evidence; the statutory defence was not made out and the conviction was therefore upheld.

Citation
HKSAR v. SUN FOOK KONG HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Defendant (appellant): SUN FOOK KONG HOLDINGS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (co Defendant): WONG SAN MAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 September 2003
Case Number
HCMA140/2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction Under Construction Sites (safety) Regulations / Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance) From Magistrate's Conviction (magistracy Appeal No.140 of 2003)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Statutory Duty to Prevent Falls, Regulatory Defences Under Construction Safety Regulations, Burden of Proof Under Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Occupational Safety Construction/regulatory Law Statutory Duty to Prevent Falls Regulatory Defences Under Construction Safety Regulations Burden of Proof Under Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

SUN FOOK KONG HOLDINGS LIMITED

1st Defendant (appellant)

WONG SAN MAN

2nd Defendant (co Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction Under Construction Sites (safety) Regulations / Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance) From Magistrate's Conviction (magistracy Appeal No.140 of 2003)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant failed to take adequate steps to prevent a person falling in contravention of Regulations 38B(1), 68(1)(a) and 68(2)(g)
  2. 2 Whether the statutory defence under Regulation 38H was available or established
  3. 3 Whether a system that waits for an express request from workers is sufficient to discharge statutory duties

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrate's findings that the appellant knew or ought to have known that a suitable higher platform was required and that a system requiring an express request was insufficient under the Regulations were open to him on the evidence; the statutory defence was not made out and the conviction was therefore upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appeal against sentence abandoned