SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SENG MING TA, PETER

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SENG MING TA, PETER

Section 14(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance does not exclude application of the deeming provision in s8 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance; proof that a registered article was properly addressed, prepaid, dispatched and arrived at the addressee's address and passed into the possession of someone at the premises is sufficient to invoke the s8 presumption of service. The presumption is rebuttable on the balance of probabilities and the burden lies on the defendant; on the facts the magistrate erred in finding rebuttal and so erred in law in acquitting the respondent.

Citation
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SENG MING TA, PETER
Parties
Appellant: Secretary for Justice; Respondent: SENG Ming-ta, Peter
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 September 1998
Case Number
HCMA181/1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal to High Court, Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction) Judgment on Case Stated
Outcome
Appeal allowed; magistrate erred in law in finding service not proved and in finding rebuttal of deemed service; acquittal set aside for further proceedings consistent with this judgment
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Deemed Service by Post, Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance S8, Prevention of Bribery Ordinance S14, Burden of Proof, Rebuttable Presumption
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Procedural Law Service of Process Deemed Service by Post Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance S8 +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary for Justice

Appellant

SENG Ming-ta, Peter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal to High Court, Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction) Judgment on Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a s14(1)(a) Prevention of Bribery notice was validly served on 27 March 1997
  2. 2 Whether s14(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance displaces or is subject to the deeming provision in s8 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether proof of a receiving act by the addressee or authorised agent is required to invoke the deeming provision

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance does not exclude application of the deeming provision in s8 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance; proof that a registered article was properly addressed, prepaid, dispatched and arrived at the addressee's address and passed into the possession of someone at the premises is sufficient to invoke the s8 presumption of service. The presumption is rebuttable on the balance of probabilities and the burden lies on the defendant; on the facts the magistrate erred in finding rebuttal and so erred in law in acquitting the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; magistrate erred in law in finding service not proved and in finding rebuttal of deemed service; acquittal set aside for further proceedings consistent with this judgment

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Magistrate's answers to case stated amended to reflect that s8 applies to s14(3) and that the presumption of deemed service was not rebutted on the facts