HKSAR v. CHIU TERESITA D. AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHIU TERESITA D. AND OTHERS

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate acted within law in amending the charge under s27 after finding no injustice, the magistrate was not obliged to give reasons at the no-case stage and the factual findings (including inference of the licensee's knowledge and application of vicarious liability under s46A(1) with failure to discharge defence under s46A(2)) were open on the evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHIU TERESITA D. AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: CHIU TERESITA D.; 2nd Appellant: MUKKANAN LALANA; 3rd Appellant: WONG SUWANDECHA TING BIGGY; 4th Appellant: YIP BUN KEUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 2000
Case Number
HCMA635/2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Court of First Instance Appellate Judgment on Conviction From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Breach of Licence Condition, Vicarious Liability Under Statutory Provision, Strict Liability Vs Mens Rea, Amendment of Charge Under S27 Cap.227, Assessment of Witness Credibility, Defence Under S46 A(2)
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Licensing Law Procedure (magistrates Ordinance) Evidence Law Breach of Licence Condition Vicarious Liability Under Statutory Provision Strict Liability Vs Mens Rea Amendment of Charge Under S27 Cap.227 +2 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

CHIU TERESITA D.

1st Appellant

MUKKANAN LALANA

2nd Appellant

WONG SUWANDECHA TING BIGGY

3rd Appellant

YIP BUN KEUNG

4th Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Court of First Instance Appellate Judgment on Conviction From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether magistrate's failure to give reasons at no-case stage was a material irregularity
  2. 2 Whether amendment of the charge under s27 Cap.227 caused injustice
  3. 3 Whether mens rea (knowledge) was required for offence under s46(1) Cap.109 or liability could be vicarious under s46A(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate acted within law in amending the charge under s27 after finding no injustice, the magistrate was not obliged to give reasons at the no-case stage and the factual findings (including inference of the licensee's knowledge and application of vicarious liability under s46A(1) with failure to discharge defence under s46A(2)) were open on the evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under section 46(1) Cap.109 and related liability under section 46A(1) affirmed