Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Final Appeal

TSANG WAI NAM v. HKSAR

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court held that the applicant's acts in arranging for delivery and shipment of the containers were properly found by the courts below to constitute an attempt to export unmanifested cargo under s 18(1)(b) pursuant to the causation/control test in AG v Tse Hung-lit and O'Sullivan; leave to appeal is therefore dismissed as no question of general importance or substantial injustice arises.

Court disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed

02

Material facts

Parties

Tsang Wai Nam

Applicant Counsel: Mr William Allan (instructed by Messrs Paul Kwong & Co)

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Respondent Counsel: Mr Cheung Wai Sun; Ms Agnes Chan (Department of Justice)

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Months: 3
  • Containers Found Unmanifested: 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Criminal Proceedings (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal From HCMA No. 461 of 2006 to Court of Final Appeal; Determination on 17 September 2007

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant argued that even if exportation had been brought to fruition her conduct could not constitute exporting because it was not shown the vessel owners were about to take the goods out of Hong Kong on her actual authority, express or implied, or in consequence of her exerting any capacity to control or influence them; relying on AG v Tse Hung-lit and O'Sullivan.
Respondent
Respondent and courts below held that the acts set out (booking space and arranging delivery and shipment of containers) were sufficient to constitute an attempt to export unmanifested cargo under the test adopted in AG v Tse Hung-lit and O'Sullivan; no substantial injustice or question of great and general importance arose.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Import and Export Ordinance (Cap 60) ss 2 and 18(1)(b)

    The statutory offence prohibits exporting unmanifested cargo; ‘export’ defined as to take or cause to be taken out of Hong Kong.

  2. 02

    AG v Tse Hung-lit [1986] AC 876; O'Sullivan v Truth and Sportsman Ltd (1957) 96 CLR 220

    An attempt to cause export requires a causal connection or capacity to cause the other party to take the goods out of the jurisdiction; tests articulated in AG v Tse Hung-lit and O'Sullivan apply.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court held that the applicant's acts in arranging for delivery and shipment of the containers were properly found by the courts below to constitute an attempt to export unmanifested cargo under s 18(1)(b) pursuant to the causation/control test in AG v Tse Hung-lit and O'Sullivan; leave to appeal is therefore dismissed as no question of general importance or substantial injustice arises.

Court disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

  • Leave to appeal dismissed

Source and reliance status

Court of Final Appeal · 17 September 2007

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Final Appeal

Judgment· 17 September 2007

TSANG WAI NAM v. HKSAR

bjbj FAMC No. 15 of 2007

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 15 OF 2007 (Criminal) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA No. 461 of 2006) _____ Between: TSANG WAI NAM Applicant - and - HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent _____ Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ Date of Hearing: 17 September 2007 Date of Determination: 17 September 2007 _______

D E T E R M I N A T I O N _______ Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: Customs & Excise officers found that a vessel about to sail from Hong Kong had on board five containers which contained unmanifested cargo. The applicant had booked space on the vessel and made arrangements for those containers to be shipped. She was consequently convicted before the magistrate of attempting to export unmanifested cargo contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap 60) and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. Her appeal to the Court of First Instance was dismissed. The vessel owners were also convicted but have not pursued any appeal. Section 18(1)(b) makes it an offence for any person to export unmanifested cargo and section 2 defines export as to take or cause to be taken out of Hong Kong any article. A single ground is put forward as the basis of this application for leave to appeal. It is argued that the applicant s conduct, even if the exportation had been brought to fruition, could not have constituted exporting in the sense of causing to be taken out of Hong Kong the goods in question. Relying on the Privy Council s decision in AG v Tse Hung-lit [1986] AC 876 which itself followed the decision of the Australian High Court in O Sullivan v Truth and Sportsman Ltd (1957) 96 CLR 220, counsel for the applicant submits that there was no attempted exportation since it was

not shown that the vessel owners were about to take the goods out of Hong Kong on the applicant s actual authority, express or implied, or in consequence of her exerting some capacity which she possessed in fact or law to control or influence the acts of the vessel owners. Barnes J lists in her judgment the acts done by the applicant in making arrangements for the containers to be delivered to and shipped by the vessel owners for carriage to the mainland. In our view, the courts below were plainly entitled to find that such acts constituted an attempt to export unmanifested cargo consistent with the test adopted by the Privy Council and the Australian High Court. No question of great and general importance arises as to the applicable test. Nor can it reasonably be argued that the conviction involves any substantial and grave injustice to the applicant. We accordingly dismiss the application for leave to appeal. (Andrew Li) (Patrick Chan) (R A V Ribeiro) Chief Justice Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Mr William Allan (instructed by Messrs Paul Kwong & Co) for the applicant Mr Cheung Wai Sun and Ms Agnes Chan (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent

PAGE X (# X (# V`]#& GF@% bt 0 roL& V.IT ,.5X jM[& $/h& t|u& U)gy GF@% V.IT U)gy bt 0 ,.5X V`]# Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG v Tse Hung-lit [1986] AC 876

Case cited

O'Sullivan v Truth and Sportsman Ltd (1957) 96 CLR 220

Case cited

Import and Export Ordinance (Cap 60) s 18(1)(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Import and Export Ordinance (Cap 60) s 2 (definition of export)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.