Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strict liability

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴羅興娟

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA170/2024

The trial judge properly accepted the credible, consistent evidence of the police witness and the contemporaneous recorded identity particulars corroborated the appellant's identity; the prosecution thereby proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the appellant did not establish any reasonable excuse and the summons was lawfully issued, therefore the conviction and fine were correctly imposed and should be upheld.
12 May 2023

HKSAR v. JAVED, SHAHID

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA218/2022

The court upheld the magistrate's exercise of discretion: the magistrate properly considered the appellant's conduct (allowing insurance to lapse for six months, failing to produce the policy after promising to do so, and not alleging theft or sale) which constituted a positive reason to refuse costs; there was no error of law or misapplication of the presumption of innocence, and the refusal of costs was therefore justified.
9 Nov 2021

香港特別行政區訴協力建業有限公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA259/2020

Treating the s27(3) offence as falling within the third category of mens rea displacement, the appellant succeeded in proving on the balance of probabilities that the company honestly and reasonably believed its existing anti‑mosquito measures would result in the absence of mosquito larvae; despite shortcomings in training materials and placement of debris, those deficiencies did not negate the appellant's established honest and reasonable belief, therefore the conviction was quashed and the fine set aside.
5 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. CHO TING KAI (曹挺楷) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 39
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC27/2021

The presumption of mens rea for the offence under ss4(1)(e) and 10(3)(a) of the Ordinance is displaced on proper construction (the offence falls within the second alternative under Kulemesin), but liability still requires the defendant to be aware of the officer's requirement; the deputy judge's construction was not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal is therefore refused.
16 Jul 2021

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUNG HANG SIXTUS (梁頌恆)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC2/2021

The Court held that the 'likely' limb of s18(1) POO displaces the presumption of mens rea and falls within the fifth Kulemesin category: no mens rea need be proved for the objective element that the conduct was likely to cause any person reasonably to fear a breach of the peace, while full mens rea must still be proved for elements that the defendants were three or more persons assembled and conducted themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner and that the defendant took part in the unlawful assembly; HKSAR v Leung Tin Kei is overruled insofar as it required men…
17 Feb 2021

香港特別行政區訴曹挺楷及另二人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 411
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA209/2019

The application for a certificate under s32(2) Cap.484 was refused because the applicants failed to satisfy the court that the legal point about mens rea under Cap.59 s4(1)(e) and s10(3)(a) is of great and general importance and that it is reasonably arguable; the applicants offered no novel or persuasive arguments beyond their appeal and therefore the statutory threshold for certification was not met.
8 Jan 2021

香港特別行政區訴曹挺楷及另三人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 29
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA209/2019

For appellants 1–3 the convictions were upheld because the last written notices constituted clear statutory requests within the offence periods, none of the three contacted the inspector to reschedule as required, the statutory scheme and context support treating the offence as strict liability subject to an honest and reasonable belief defence, and the evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt as to such a belief. For the fourth appellant the convictions were quashed because his interference was shown to be aimed at securing legal advice for workers, the delay was short and did not meet the…
23 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. ABLE ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2476
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA597/2019

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the magistrate's finding of negligence by unspecified employees was not supported by the evidence, the inference that the channel could and should have been covered was speculative and not grounded in primary fact, and the appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that it honestly and reasonably believed it was complying with statutory and regulatory anti-mosquito measures, thereby establishing the common law defence.
1 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. LIU YAU FOOK

Citation

[2020] HKCA 745
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2019

The Court held that the objective circumstances (night loading of black-wrapped pallets onto speedboats very close to the border, observed operation of the crane by the applicant, the lack of manifest) were acts more than merely preparatory and permitted only the irresistible inference that the applicant intended to export the goods; the judge was entitled to reject the applicant’s cautioned statement and to refuse leave to appeal.
13 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. YIP KA-SHING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA383/2018

Section 52(3) RTO is properly construed to require proof of the defendant driver's subjective purpose to drive 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' (a predominantly commercial purpose); no legal requirement of a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger nor a distance-based remedial gloss; s52(3) is not overbroad or unconstitutional as properly construed; on the facts the drivers acted with the prohibited purpose and convictions are safe and upheld.