Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Absolute offence

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. NAWAZ AKMAL

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 692
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA407/2021

The offences refer to any "person" and do not require proof of registered ownership; effective possession or control of the vehicle was sufficient to satisfy the actus reus; the appellant's admissions established payment, possession, insurance and lending of the motorcycle and mens rea or registration status were immaterial given the statutory form of the offences, thus the convictions were safe and must be upheld.
21 Dec 1995

R. v. HUANG WEI JIAN and Another

Citation

R. v. HUANG WEI JIAN and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC621/1995

S.37D is a strict offence with a narrow due diligence defence which the 2nd applicant did not establish on the evidence; the untested exculpatory statement was improbable and insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt; the evidence proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the sentences and discounts applied were not wrong or manifestly excessive, thus appeals are dismissed.
13 Oct 1977

CHUNG KOON-WANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHUNG KOON-WANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC987/1977

Owner CHAN's conviction quashed because precedent compels that a registered owner cannot be treated as 'using' the vehicle where the driver was not his servant and the facts fitted the hire/shift system; the charge should have been 'permitting' if owner liability was sought. Driver CHUNG's conviction upheld because he was the user driving for his own benefit and the offence of using with defective brakes is absolute.
25 Feb 1971

YU WOON v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YU WOON v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC58/1971

Conviction for driving an unlicensed vehicle quashed because de‑registration had not been effected and licence was valid; conviction for driving without third party insurance under s.4(1) upheld as an absolute offence; mandatory 12‑month disqualification set aside on these facts because the appellant borrowed the car with the lawful owner's consent and the circumstances distinguish the Chang precedent, permitting exercise of discretion against disqualification.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. NAWAZ AKMAL

R. v. HUANG WEI JIAN and Another

CHUNG KOON-WANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

YU WOON v. THE QUEEN