R. v. LAW SHEK PO

R. v. LAW SHEK PO

The magistrate properly accepted the Acting Senior Health Inspector's evidence and the approved plan P1, from which the only reasonable inference was that the hatch was added after approval without written permission, thereby proving the offence under By-law 33 beyond reasonable doubt.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
R. v. LAW SHEK PO
Parties
Respondent (crown): The Queen; Appellant: Law Shek-Po
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 April 1995
Case Number
HCMA133/1995
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal No. 133 of 1995 / Decision on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Structural Alteration, Deviation From Approved Plan, Licensing Offence, Penalty: Fine and Costs
Source Language
en
Regulatory Offences Food Business Licensing Criminal Law Administrative Law Unauthorised Structural Alteration Deviation From Approved Plan Licensing Offence Penalty: Fine and Costs

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

The Queen

Respondent (crown)

Law Shek-Po

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal No. 133 of 1995 / Decision on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant permitted a material deviation from the approved plan without the Urban Council's written permission under By-law 33
  2. 2 Whether the hatch constituted a material deviation from the approved plan
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate properly accepted the Acting Senior Health Inspector's evidence and the approved plan P1, from which the only reasonable inference was that the hatch was added after approval without written permission, thereby proving the offence under By-law 33 beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and conviction upheld
  • Original fine of $2,000 upheld