2 Aug 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 何慶平
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 1851
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA23/2023
Conviction upheld because the licence did not lawfully authorise the appellant's activities (licence had lapsed and its scope was limited to 'unimproved grazing and grass cutting'), objective evidence showed disturbance beyond grass cutting, and the appellant failed to establish an honest and reasonable belief in lawful authority; on sentence the Court substituted the immediate custodial term with the statutory maximum fine in light of mitigation (acting on instructions) and proportionality concerns.