Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Record‑keeping obligations

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2010

DR CHEUNG YING KIT ERIC v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

DR CHEUNG YING KIT ERIC v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV166/2010

The court found that the registers, as evidenced by copies produced, allowed tracing of quantities and that the Medical Council and magistrate were mistaken in concluding tracing was impossible; accordingly the 6-month sentence for the October 2008 convictions was excessive and was substituted with a 3-month sentence, with that sentence to run consecutively to the earlier three-month disqualification sentence.
3 Nov 2006

HKSAR v. TSE SO SO

Citation

HKSAR v. TSE SO SO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA282/2006

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.
20 Aug 2003

HKSAR v. LAU KOON LEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU KOON LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA669/2003

The Special Magistrate failed properly to consider the aggregate effect of 47 similar offences; although individual fines of HK$10,000 were not per se manifestly excessive, the total fine of HK$470,000 was manifestly excessive. The appropriate disposal was to substitute a fine of HK$2,500 on each summons, totalling HK$117,500, while leaving the confiscation order intact.
30 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. NG NGA WO

Citation

HKSAR v. NG NGA WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA185/2001

The High Court affirmed the magistrate's finding that multiple and material omissions and inaccuracies in the dangerous drugs register — including incorrect balances, missing supplier details, inadequate address entries, non‑chronological entries and missing drug names — meant the statutory requirement to keep the register in the specified form was not met; delegation to nurses without adequate safeguards did not constitute due diligence and therefore the conviction was upheld.
25 Apr 1996

CHOW CHOR KUEN , PETER v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

CHOW CHOR KUEN , PETER v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV176/1995

The Court held there were no grounds to interfere: the Council acted within its statutory powers to consider the magistracy record and other evidence, the appellant's explanations and reconstructed records were unsatisfactory, and given the seriousness, scale and discrepancies a three‑month removal from the register was a justified and proportionate disciplinary sanction.

Hong Kong Case Law

DR CHEUNG YING KIT ERIC v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

HKSAR v. TSE SO SO

HKSAR v. LAU KOON LEUNG

HKSAR v. NG NGA WO

CHOW CHOR KUEN , PETER v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG