Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Identification doctrine

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2022

HKSAR v. JAIN SANDEEP

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 512
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA291/2021

The company pleaded guilty under s22 to breaching licence conditions by failing to exercise due diligence; as the controlling mind and authorised representative who entered that plea the appellant could not show on the balance of probabilities that the act took place without his knowledge or consent under s23, having accepted inadequate systems and delegation; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and conviction and fine are upheld.
11 Jun 2019

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KEE FUNG CHEUNG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA498/2018

The magistrate's factual finding that larvae were moving and therefore alive was permissible and not plainly wrong; the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that it honestly and reasonably believed no mosquito breeding existed because the measures at the site (use of a hollow plank covering the sag) were inadequate, so the common law defence was not made out and the conviction must stand.
19 Dec 1985

THE QUEEN v. LEE TSAT PIN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE TSAT PIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC315/1985

There was insufficient evidence to link the appellant to the commission of the offences or to show that any officer of Leeds Textiles committed the offences; section 20 of the Theft Ordinance was inapplicable; the trial judge misdirected the jury by conflating counts and failing to put the defence, rendering the convictions unsafe — appeal allowed, convictions quashed, sentences set aside and appellant discharged; costs awarded under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. JAIN SANDEEP

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KEE FUNG CHEUNG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

THE QUEEN v. LEE TSAT PIN