Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employing person not lawfully employable

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. PUN KAM HUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2600
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA183/2022

The Court upheld the magistrate's increase from the 3-month guideline to a total of 6 months concurrent, holding that the magistrate properly relied on the appellant's admissions and relevant aggravating features (deliberate employment of multiple unknown Form 8 holders for cheap labour) and that, given the deterrent purpose of s17I, the total sentence was not manifestly excessive.
25 Jul 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA608/2021

Magistrate's findings were legally sound: objective standard required an employer faced with only a non-permanent Hong Kong identity card to take further feasible steps (inspect travel documents or consult Immigration); failure to do so meant the statutory defence was not established as to Hung, so convictions stand. However, in sentencing the 1st appellant was not found reckless given special facts (forged card bore his employee's portrait, longstanding acquaintance, first offence, business scale), so the custodial term was suspended for 2 years rather than immediate imprisonment.
14 Jan 2014

HKSAR v. NG CHI WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHI WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA455/2013

The court allowed the appeal on sentence and substituted the magistrate's original 15‑month sentences with the magistrate's indicated sentence of two months' imprisonment for each count, with one month to be served consecutively, because that sentence represented the appropriate outcome after taking into account the magistrate's starting point, the guilty pleas and the agreement of the parties.
9 Feb 2007

HKSAR v. WONG CHI KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA769/2006

The magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's account and to infer the employee had not produced a Hong Kong identity card; accordingly the conviction was upheld. On sentence, the Court applied the Court of Appeal guideline in Secretary for Justice v. Ho Mei Wa and reduced the effective sentence to reflect that guideline and time already spent in custody, allowing immediate release on the substituted sentence for the second charge while retaining the two‑month consecutive sentence for the first charge.
3 Nov 2004

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HIU WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HIU WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA854/2004

The Court upheld the Magistrate's credibility finding in favor of PW1 (Zhu); absent any evidence that the Magistrate misapplied the law or improperly assessed credibility, the convictions for employing a person not lawfully employable, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and criminal intimidation were supported by the evidence and the appeal was dismissed.
28 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. HUI PAK MUI

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI PAK MUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA488/2004

The magistrate's adverse credibility findings, supported by the appellant's recorded admission that she did not check the employee's identity card and the failure to account satisfactorily for the alleged photocopy, meant the appellant failed to prove the statutory defence that she had taken all practicable steps; accordingly the conviction was upheld and the nine months' custodial sentence was within established sentencing parameters and was affirmed on appeal.
9 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. CHOI BIK YEE

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI BIK YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA556/2004

A.G. v. Wong Chung Lee is not directly binding for the offence of aiding and abetting breach of condition of stay; the magistrate's sentence of 10 months was excessive relative to the established practice for the aiding and abetting offence and was set aside and substituted with a partly consecutive sentence totaling six months imprisonment.
19 Feb 2004

HKSAR v. BUI THI THUY

Citation

HKSAR v. BUI THI THUY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1167/2003

The learned Magistrate properly assessed credibility, lawfully admitted the cautioned statement after a voir dire, confined consideration to the three charged incidents and had sufficient admissible evidence to support the convictions; therefore the convictions are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Apr 1999

HKSAR v. PETRUS YAU

Citation

HKSAR v. PETRUS YAU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1/1998

Convictions on charges 1 and 2 were quashed because the judge's reliance on supporting evidence for the chief witness was unsustainable—Choy's evidence did not adequately corroborate the witness's claim of month-long employment at the Appellant's home and the Appellant's payment of fares did not necessarily support employment; conviction on charge 3 was upheld because Mr. Ma's evidence provided adequate support; the summary contempt conviction was quashed because the judge acted precipitately and failed to afford a fair opportunity for reflection, apology or advice; sentencing on charge 3 sta…
29 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. McDONALD\'S RESTAURANT (HONGKONG) LTD.

Citation

HKSAR v. McDONALD\'S RESTAURANT (HONGKONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA304/1998

The court found the appellant's negligence in recruitment was not easily excusable given the employer's size and the apparent nationality of the employees; the fines of $60,000 on each summons were within the range of prior magistrates' sentences, deterrence was appropriate for commercial employers, the totality principle was not breached, and therefore the sentences were not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.