Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory defence of reasonable diligence

Legal area

Court

31 Jan 2011

HKSAR v. LEE SZE TING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE SZE TING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA723/2010

Where a statutory defence requires that the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered non‑registration, and where a public‑health regulatory scheme and accessible official information exist, the defendant must take positive steps to verify registration; the Appellant failed to show she took such steps and therefore did not discharge the burden under Regulation 36(1C).
26 Nov 2010

HKSAR v. LEE TO NEI

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE TO NEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA403/2010

Given the regulatory and consumer‑protection context of counterfeiting, section 26(4) properly imposes on a trader a persuasive burden to prove on the balance of probabilities that he did not know, had no reason to suspect and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the forged trade mark; the appellant, who was a frontline salesman and part‑owner, failed to prove reasonable diligence and accordingly the conviction is upheld; the original six‑month sentence was excessive and reduced to eight weeks imprisonment.
4 Dec 2001

HKSAR v. KAN CHUNG HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. KAN CHUNG HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA794/2001

Where the substantive offence is strict liability, an attempt under s.159(G) requires intent to perform the acts of export but does not require proof that the defendant knew the cargo was unmanifested; the appellant failed to prove the statutory defence under s.18(2) because he did not exercise reasonable diligence, so conviction stands; the sentence of 9 months was appropriate but should be suspended for 2 years given mitigating factors.
21 Jul 1993

THE QUEEN v. LUI TAK HOI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LUI TAK HOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1/1993

The court held that s.18(1) is a strict liability offence because the legislature expressly inserted the word 'knowingly' in s.18A when amending the Ordinance and omitted it from s.18(1), a clear indication of legislative intent to displace mens rea; accordingly the magistrate correctly applied s.18(2) and convicted when the appellant failed to show he could not with reasonable diligence have known of the concealed cargo.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LEE SZE TING

HKSAR v. LEE TO NEI

HKSAR v. KAN CHUNG HUNG

THE QUEEN v. LUI TAK HOI