11 Jan 2005
HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC375/2004
Charging the applicant under both s118 and s125 was not duplicitous because s125 provides an alternative mode of proving the same s118 wrongdoing by a director; the omission of particulars specifying director capacity and consent/connivance was a technical defect that caused no prejudice; evidence including licence status, admitted facts, management role and absence of explanation justified irresistible inferences that the applicant possessed the infringing items and knew of the use of production lines to make infringing copies; therefore convictions under Charges 1, 3 and 4 (s118 provisions)…