香港特別行政區 訴 港澳防水有限公司

香港特別行政區 訴 港澳防水有限公司

The magistrate did not err in law or in the exercise of discretion: although the defence under s33(b) produced reasonable doubt and led to acquittal, the magistrate properly considered the appellant's suspicious conduct, timing and late explanations when exercising her separate discretion on costs and lawfully...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
香港特別行政區 訴 港澳防水有限公司
Parties
Respondent: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Appellant: Hong Kong Macau Water Proof Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 November 2017
Case Number
HCMA640/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Magistrates' Court Decision (order on Costs) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Following Acquittal and Refusal of Costs Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; refusal of costs upheld
Legal Topics
Noise Control, Statutory Defences (s33), Costs Discretionary Decision, Burden of Proof, Appeal Against Costs Decision
Source Language
ch
Criminal Law Environmental Regulation Procedural Law Noise Control Statutory Defences (s33) Costs Discretionary Decision Burden of Proof Appeal Against Costs Decision

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Respondent

Hong Kong Macau Water Proof Company Limited

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Magistrates' Court Decision (order on Costs) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Following Acquittal and Refusal of Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in law or in the exercise of discretion in refusing to award costs
  2. 2 Whether the statutory defence in s33(b) (prevention of injury or saving life) applied to justify the conduct
  3. 3 Whether a refusal to award costs is inconsistent with an acquittal based on that defence

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate did not err in law or in the exercise of discretion: although the defence under s33(b) produced reasonable doubt and led to acquittal, the magistrate properly considered the appellant's suspicious conduct, timing and late explanations when exercising her separate discretion on costs and lawfully refused to award costs; therefore the appeal against the refusal of costs is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; refusal of costs upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; magistrate's refusal to award costs is upheld