13 Oct 2023
香港特別行政區 訴 張雅雯
- Citation
- [2023] HKCFI 2618
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA156/2022
Appellate court found that on the evidence DW1 was the person in possession and control of the dog at the material time and thus a statutory keeper; the judge at trial failed to give adequate effect to that fact and to determine that appellant was the keeper in control when the bite occurred. The appellant was not vicariously liable for DW1's misconduct; on rehearing the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed the offence, so conviction and sentence were quashed.