R. v. TSUI TAT KUEN

R. v. TSUI TAT KUEN

Convictions quashed because the agreed evidence and exhibits did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the documents were false or that he must have known the true contents of the goods; it would be unjust to impose absolute liability and imprisonment on him in these circumstances when the agreed exporter and director were acquitted; ambiguous and improperly framed agreed statements lack sufficient evidential value.

Citation
R. v. TSUI TAT KUEN
Parties
Respondent/crown Prosecutor: THE QUEEN; Appellant/defendant (employee): TSUI TAT KUEN; Defendant (exporter at Trial): Crossing Electronic (Chemical) Limited; Defendant (director): Li Lana
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 December 1993
Case Number
HCMA780/1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Judgment Delivered
Outcome
appeal allowed; convictions quashed; sentences set aside; retrial ordered to be considered
Legal Topics
Unmanifested Cargo, Attempted Export of Strategic Commodities, False Information on Export Manifest, Strict/absolute Liability, Presumption of Knowledge, Agreed Statements of Fact Under Section 65 CPO
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Customs and Export Control Criminal Procedure Statutory Interpretation Unmanifested Cargo Attempted Export of Strategic Commodities False Information on Export Manifest Strict/absolute Liability +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent/crown Prosecutor

TSUI TAT KUEN

Appellant/defendant (employee)

Crossing Electronic (Chemical) Limited

Defendant (exporter at Trial)

Li Lana

Defendant (director)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence that appellant knew documents were false or that he caused unmanifested cargo to be exported
  2. 2 Whether Section 18 Import and Export Ordinance imposes absolute liability on a person in appellant's role
  3. 3 Evidential value and form of agreed statements of fact under Section 65(c) Criminal Procedure Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions quashed because the agreed evidence and exhibits did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the documents were false or that he must have known the true contents of the goods; it would be unjust to impose absolute liability and imprisonment on him in these circumstances when the agreed exporter and director were acquitted; ambiguous and improperly framed agreed statements lack sufficient evidential value.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; convictions quashed; sentences set aside; retrial ordered to be considered

Orders

  • Convictions on all three charges quashed
  • Sentences set aside