Hong Kong Case Law

13 Oct 2017

香港特別行政區 訴 卓芝服裝有限公司

Citation

香港特別行政區 訴 卓芝服裝有限公司

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA434/2016

Considering the appellant's clean record, immediate guilty plea, subsequent filing of the annual return and demonstrated financial hardship, and given the prosecution's concession that the original sentence was high, the court allowed the appeal and substituted a reduced penalty of HKD 3,340 (HKD 2,000 fixed plus HKD 20 per day for 67 days = HKD 1,340) and declined to make a costs order.

• Failure to file annual return
• Sentencing - fines
• Mitigation - financial hardship
• Costs

13 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. HA CHEUK FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. HA CHEUK FUNG

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA324/2006

Given the large number of calls (220) and the facts including cooperation and absence of threats, the fine of HK$1,000 imposed by the Magistrate was not excessive and the appeal against sentence must be dismissed; the court noted the conviction will be spent after three years if no further offence is committed.

• Harassment
• Summary offences ordinance s20(c)
• Sentencing - fines
• Spent conviction

19 Jul 2001

HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD.

Citation

HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD.

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA167/2001

The learned Magistrate's factual findings that the A-frame ladder was unsafe for the task and that the appellant had not established a practicable alternative or a reasonable honest belief in compliance were open on the evidence; accordingly the conviction under Reg 38B(1) was upheld, but the original fine was manifestly excessive and substituted with a proportionate fine of HK$3,000.

• Construction site (safety) regulations
• Prevention of falls (reg 38b)
• Safe means of support (reg 38c)
• Defence of honest and reasonable belief (reg 38h)
• Sentencing - fines

6 Sept 1996

R. v. FANTA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

R. v. FANTA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC199/1996

Liability under the Dumping at Sea statutory scheme is one of strict liability; the applicant failed to prove the s1(8)(b) defence because the joint ticketing and visual inspection system was inadequate and haphazard and did not constitute all reasonable steps; therefore convictions and fines stand.

• Strict liability
• Statutory defence (reliance on information and reasonable steps)
• Due diligence and monitoring systems
• Sentencing - fines

CHUNG KEI LUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHUNG KEI LUNG v. THE QUEEN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC81/1973

The appellate court upheld the careless driving conviction and $200 fine but set aside the conviction and $300 fine on the second Information because that Information was duplicitous (it charged both failure to display plates and driving outside permitted hours) and the magistrate could not know which offence the guilty plea covered; duplicity rendered the conviction and fine on that Information invalid.

• Careless driving
• Driving licence regulations
• Duplicity of charge
• Sentencing — fines