Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Absolute liability

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2025

香港特別行政區訴其士（建築）有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4125
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA351/2024

The court held the amended informations did not create an offence unknown to law; the Regulations' definition of 'owner' brings the contractor responsible for the construction site within the statutory owner definition where the lifting gear was used in connection with site work; the impugned provisions are absolute liability/non-delegable duties such that lack of knowledge or delegation to subcontractors does not absolve the appellant; on the retrial standard the prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions must be upheld.
20 May 2019

香港特別行政區訴陳言洛

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1208
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA540/2018

So Wai Lun remains binding authority that section 124 is an absolute liability offence making the appellant's belief as to age irrelevant; the trial judge properly assessed credibility and rejected the appellant's evidence, therefore the convictions stand and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Nov 2017

HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC28/2017

Leave to appeal was granted because the certified questions concerning whether s122(1) and (2) create absolute liability and the availability and burden of proof of defences of consent and genuine belief raise issues of sufficient legal importance to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
22 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA620/2016

The court found the three formulated questions involve points of law of great and general importance, the respondent raised no substantive objection, and therefore granted leave to issue a certificate under Cap 484 s32(2) in respect of those questions; leave to file out of time and to file in English was also granted.
12 Feb 2015

HKSAR v. VW-VES (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. VW-VES (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC69/2014

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate correctly applied established principles and properly concluded the offences were of absolute or strict liability, the factual findings that individual applicants were owners/contractors with control were sustainable on the evidence, questions on joint venture prosecution were academic or fact-specific and no substantial and grave injustice was shown.
22 Aug 2014

HKSAR v. VW-VES (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. VW-VES (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA742/2013

The Court upheld the magistrate: the Regulations' statutory purpose justified treating the offences as absolute liability; the factual findings that the appellants were owners on site and that the seized slings did not match the Form 7 certificates were unimpeached; prosecuting the individual contractors rather than the joint venture was lawful to give effect to the safety regime. Accordingly convictions on Summons Groups I–III were upheld and the appeal dismissed (acquittals on Group IV maintained).
28 Feb 2014

HKSAR v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA426/2013

The appellate court confirmed the magistrate's finding that the system of work lacked a reasonably practicable safety requirement that both signalmen independently confirm clearance before lifting; that omission rendered the system unsafe so far as reasonably practicable; the appellant failed to discharge the statutory defence under s.18; and common law defences of honest and reasonable belief and due diligence are not available in the face of the statutory defence. Accordingly the convictions were upheld.
25 Jan 2013

香港特別行政區訴創立（香港）有限公司

Citation

香港特別行政區訴創立（香港）有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA490/2012

Regulation 27 displaces the presumption of mens rea and, having regard to its regulatory purpose and the role of licence holders as gatekeepers, must be treated as creating an absolute liability offence so the common law defence of honest and reasonable belief is not available; on the facts the appellant failed to establish any honest and reasonable belief and the conviction and fine are therefore upheld.
12 May 2009

HKSAR v. HIN LIN YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. HIN LIN YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA574/2008

The court held that the common law defence is inapplicable to safety legislation so the offences of selling drugs unfit for use were absolute and the elements of those offences were proved; the 1st Appellant failed to prove the statutory due diligence defence as to possession of an unregistered pharmaceutical product; accordingly convictions were upheld, but sentences were reduced because the trial findings of deliberate adulteration could not be supported and mitigation (including publicity and lack of proven motive or serious harm) warranted lower fines.
18 Jul 2006

SO WAI LUN v. HKSAR

Citation

SO WAI LUN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC5/2005

Section 124 of the Crimes Ordinance does not violate equality or liberty guarantees: the legislative choice to criminalise only the male is justified by genuine need, rationality and proportionality, and imposing absolute liability for unlawful intercourse with a girl under 16 is not arbitrary given the protective purpose and deterrent effect; therefore s.124 is constitutional and the appellant's conviction is upheld.