R. v. CHENG KAI and Another

R. v. CHENG KAI and Another

The court held s.18 Cap.60 creates a strict liability offence so mens rea as to the unmanifest status is unnecessary; the appellants performed acts more than merely preparatory and immediately connected with exportation (booking space, filling shipping orders, procuring containers and delivering them) which amounted to an attempt; therefore convictions were safe; evidence of an intention to correct the manifest is only a mitigating factor and not a defence.

Citation
R. v. CHENG KAI and Another
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; 1st Appellant: CHENG KAI; 2nd Appellant: YAU YIN PAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 May 1996
Case Number
HCMA753/1994
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal No.753 of 1994) / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Hearing and Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Convictions upheld; appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Attempt to Export Unmanifested Cargo, Strict Liability Offences, Mens Rea Vs Actus Reus, Manifest and Shipping Documentation, Sentencing and Mitigation
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Customs and Excise Maritime/shipping Law Statutory Interpretation Attempt to Export Unmanifested Cargo Strict Liability Offences Mens Rea Vs Actus Reus Manifest and Shipping Documentation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CHENG KAI

1st Appellant

YAU YIN PAN

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal No.753 of 1994) / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Hearing and Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.18 Import and Export Ordinance offence requires mens rea regarding unmanifest status
  2. 2 Whether appellants' conduct amounted to an attempt to export unmanifested cargo or was merely preparatory
  3. 3 Whether evidence supported Magistrate's finding of lack of intention to correct the manifest

Ratio Decidendi

The court held s.18 Cap.60 creates a strict liability offence so mens rea as to the unmanifest status is unnecessary; the appellants performed acts more than merely preparatory and immediately connected with exportation (booking space, filling shipping orders, procuring containers and delivering them) which amounted to an attempt; therefore convictions were safe; evidence of an intention to correct the manifest is only a mitigating factor and not a defence.

Court Disposition

Convictions upheld; appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction dismissed
  • Convictions of both appellants affirmed