HKSAR v. LAM MEI LING AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LAM MEI LING AND ANOTHER

Magistrate correctly rejected the 1st appellant's reliance on the common law defence because mere lending a name, absence of inquiry and implicit trust in spouse did not constitute a good and sufficient reason and the appellant derived benefit from the business; conviction of the 1st appellant is upheld. Regarding the 2nd appellant, the magistrate erred in distinguishing transactions solely by production of copies at trial; the 2nd appellant's consistent evidence that he inspected and believed the certificates genuine applied to all transactions and thus his convictions (as entered by the magistrate for the three summonses) were quashed on appeal.

Citation
HKSAR v. LAM MEI LING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: Lam Mei Ling
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 August 2004
Case Number
HCMA494/2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Against Magistrates' Convictions in Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction)
Outcome
1st appellant's appeal dismissed; 2nd appellant's appeal allowed and convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Statutory Defence Under Section 36(1), Certificate of Origin, Export Licence, Evidence and Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Trade and Customs Law Administrative Law Strict Liability Statutory Defence Under Section 36(1) Certificate of Origin Export Licence Evidence and Credibility Assessment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Lam Mei Ling

1st Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal Against Magistrates' Convictions in Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st appellant could rely on the common law defence of honest and reasonable belief despite strict liability offences
  2. 2 Whether lending a name and taking no part in company affairs constitutes a good and sufficient reason for erroneous belief defence
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd appellant satisfied the statutory defence in s36(1) of the Import and Export Ordinance by showing he did not know and had no reason to believe certificates were false

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrate correctly rejected the 1st appellant's reliance on the common law defence because mere lending a name, absence of inquiry and implicit trust in spouse did not constitute a good and sufficient reason and the appellant derived benefit from the business; conviction of the 1st appellant is upheld. Regarding the 2nd appellant, the magistrate erred in distinguishing transactions solely by production of copies at trial; the 2nd appellant's consistent evidence that he inspected and believed the certificates genuine applied to all transactions and thus his convictions (as entered by the magistrate for the three summonses) were quashed on appeal.

Court Disposition

1st appellant's appeal dismissed; 2nd appellant's appeal allowed and convictions quashed

Orders

  • 1st appellant's appeal against conviction dismissed
  • 2nd appellant's appeal against conviction allowed and convictions quashed