HKSAR v. TSE SO SO

HKSAR v. TSE SO SO

The amendments to the informations were not amendments under section 27 because they were not made by the adjudicating magistrate and in effect substituted fresh informations filed after the six-month limitation period under section 26; therefore the magistrate lacked jurisdiction and the convictions were quashed, although the court upheld that the prescribed form (including the balance column) imposes a duty to enter true particulars and that the offence is one of strict liability.

Citation
HKSAR v. TSE SO SO
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: TSE SO SO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2006
Case Number
HCMA282/2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; fines set aside.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Amendment of Information, Limitation Period, Strict Liability Offences, Record Keeping Obligations, Jurisdiction of Magistrates
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Procedural Law Regulatory Law Health Law Statutory Interpretation Amendment of Information Limitation Period Strict Liability Offences +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

TSE SO SO

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to informations made before a non-adjudicating magistrate fall within s27 Magistrates Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether amended informations filed beyond the six-month limitation under s26 are time-barred rendering the magistrate without jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether Regulation 5(1) requires true particulars to be entered in the balance column of the prescribed register

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to the informations were not amendments under section 27 because they were not made by the adjudicating magistrate and in effect substituted fresh informations filed after the six-month limitation period under section 26; therefore the magistrate lacked jurisdiction and the convictions were quashed, although the court upheld that the prescribed form (including the balance column) imposes a duty to enter true particulars and that the offence is one of strict liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; fines set aside.

Orders

  • Convictions quashed
  • Fines totaling HKD 108000 set aside