HKSAR v. WOO HING HOLDING LTD t/a WOO HING CO

HKSAR v. WOO HING HOLDING LTD t/a WOO HING CO

Section 13(1) FIUO, read purposively with s.6A, can impose liability on proprietors (including principal contractors) for like offences committed in the industrial undertaking even as regards persons not directly employed by them; the displacement of mens rea in that context is justified as a proportionate and rational means to further the legitimate aim of workplace safety; amendments under s.27 were properly exercised and the trial convictions were supported by the evidence, so all three appeals fail.

Citation
HKSAR v. WOO HING HOLDING LTD t/a WOO HING CO
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant (hcma 590/2009): Woo Hing Holding Limited (trading as Woo Hing Company); Appellant (hcma 922/2009): Paul Y. General Contractors Ltd; Appellant (hcma 102/2010): Lucky Engineering Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 August 2011
Case Number
HCMA590/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeals Consolidated) / Judgment on Appeal (convictions Challenged)
Outcome
All appeals dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Absolute/strict Liability, Construction Site Safety, Section 13 FIUO, Section 6 a FIUO, Presumption of Innocence, Amendment of Charge Under S.27, Legal Certainty and Proportionality
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Occupational Safety and Health Statutory Interpretation Constitutional Law Absolute/strict Liability Construction Site Safety Section 13 FIUO Section 6 a FIUO +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Woo Hing Holding Limited (trading as Woo Hing Company)

Appellant (hcma 590/2009)

Paul Y. General Contractors Ltd

Appellant (hcma 922/2009)

Lucky Engineering Company Limited

Appellant (hcma 102/2010)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeals Consolidated) / Judgment on Appeal (convictions Challenged)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.13(1) FIUO imports liability for proprietors for offences under s.6A in respect of persons not employed by them
  2. 2 Whether s.13(1) and its operation with s.6A displaces mens rea and is compatible with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (presumption of innocence)
  3. 3 Whether s.13 creates absolute liability and if so whether that is justified and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

Section 13(1) FIUO, read purposively with s.6A, can impose liability on proprietors (including principal contractors) for like offences committed in the industrial undertaking even as regards persons not directly employed by them; the displacement of mens rea in that context is justified as a proportionate and rational means to further the legitimate aim of workplace safety; amendments under s.27 were properly exercised and the trial convictions were supported by the evidence, so all three appeals fail.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed; convictions upheld

Orders

  • HCMA 590/2009 appeal dismissed; convictions under KCS 36106/2008 and KCS 36107/2008 upheld
  • HCMA 922/2009 appeal dismissed; convictions under KCS 10145/2009, KCS 10147/2009 upheld