Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory defence of due diligence

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2012

HKSAR v. LAU CHESTER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHESTER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA170/2012

Proper notice was given and the appellant did not appear; the appeal lacked merit because liability under s63 arises from receipt of the notice based on suspicion rather than proof of an offence, and the appellant failed to show he took the obvious reasonable steps to establish due diligence; the magistrate afforded a fair hearing, therefore the appropriate exercise of discretion was to dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and fine.
22 Sept 2010

HKSAR v. WONG MAU LAM

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG MAU LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA549/2010

The court found significant doubt that the label 'RPM‑3880' was a false trade description rather than a brand or model designation and accepted that, given the appellant's role as a part‑time salesman and the way the sample was displayed, it was reasonable that he could have believed the label referred to a model number; consequently the convictions could not stand and the appeal (though out of time) was allowed and the conviction quashed.
27 Apr 1984

TSANG OI MUI AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

TSANG OI MUI AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA178/1984

Absence of the word "knowingly" does not automatically render the offence absolute; in the absence of clear statutory intention the presumption of mens rea applies and the statutory defence in s46A(2)(b) is available with the burden on the accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that he took all practicable steps to prevent the offence; accordingly the convictions could not stand on the record and must be quashed with a rehearing ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAU CHESTER

HKSAR v. WONG MAU LAM

TSANG OI MUI AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL