Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strict liability offence

Legal area

Court

27 May 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃勤昌

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA441/2024

The photographic and technical evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant drove past the stop line after the red light was illuminated; the minor discrepancy in cited timings and a non‑fatal error in the summons did not cause injustice; the offence is strict liability and the appellant failed to prove any reasonable excuse, therefore the conviction and fine are affirmed.
25 Jul 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA608/2021

Magistrate's findings were legally sound: objective standard required an employer faced with only a non-permanent Hong Kong identity card to take further feasible steps (inspect travel documents or consult Immigration); failure to do so meant the statutory defence was not established as to Hung, so convictions stand. However, in sentencing the 1st appellant was not found reckless given special facts (forged card bore his employee's portrait, longstanding acquaintance, first offence, business scale), so the custodial term was suspended for 2 years rather than immediate imprisonment.
9 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. LEUNG KAM WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3214
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP509/2021

The judge held the Implementation Rules are integral to NSL s43; applying the Lai Chee Ying bail threshold to a national security‑linked offence, the judge concluded there was a real risk the applicants would continue to commit acts endangering national security and that their refusal would hinder investigation, and therefore bail was refused.
6 May 2021

HKSAR v. ABLE ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1170
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA55/2020

The court held the s24 request under the OSHO was valid and the offence is strict liability with the defence required to raise a reasonable excuse; the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with deadlines without sufficient explanation; the magistrate was entitled to reject key witness evidence and to infer refusal from the documentary and oral evidence; accordingly the conviction and fine were upheld.
14 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴中科興業有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA20/2019

The conviction was upheld because the prosecution proved both elements of s.48(1)(a): the employees had lost work capacity as evidenced by medical certificates and s10(2), and the circumstances at termination entitled them to compensation; the employer had knowledge through notification to supervisors and receipt of certificates under s14(2); s5(2)(a) did not apply because it concerns the nature of the injury and capacity, not the fact of payment of full wages.
11 Jun 2019

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KEE FUNG CHEUNG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA498/2018

The magistrate's factual finding that larvae were moving and therefore alive was permissible and not plainly wrong; the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that it honestly and reasonably believed no mosquito breeding existed because the measures at the site (use of a hollow plank covering the sag) were inadequate, so the common law defence was not made out and the conviction must stand.
5 Jun 2018

香港特別行政區訴鄭保瑜

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA495/2017

Section 17I(1A) of the Immigration Ordinance must be read as imposing only an evidential (production) burden on the accused: once the accused adduces sufficient evidence to raise the statutory defence, the prosecution must disprove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did take all reasonably practicable steps and reasonably concluded the employee could be lawfully employed. Imposing a persuasive burden on the accused fails the proportionality requirement and is not justified on the facts and legislative context of s17I(1A).
31 Mar 2015

HKSAR v. UDDIN, MD MOHI

Citation

HKSAR v. UDDIN, MD MOHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA378/2014

Given the appellant was the owner and the only person present selling goods alone demonstrated knowledge and control of shop items and prices, it was reasonable for the magistrate to draw an irresistible inference that the appellant had placed Hossen in a position of trust and therefore employed him; conviction is safe and appeal dismissed.
17 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. HO MANG KEUNG JOSEPH

Citation

HKSAR v. HO MANG KEUNG JOSEPH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA648/2006

Licence conditions 8 and 9 were within the Commissioner's statutory power under ss.27–30 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance and not ultra vires; the magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence as dishonest and to find the appellant failed to establish the Fong Chin Yue mistake defence on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the conviction was upheld.
4 Jan 2006

HKSAR v. HANG CHI LOK

Citation

HKSAR v. HANG CHI LOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1138/2005

The appellant failed to prove the statutory defence under s118(3) because his enquiries were objectively insufficient in the circumstances (asking an unknown third party was inadequate and his account of inspecting the goods was inconsistent), s118(6)'s requirements were not satisfied, and the magistrate was entitled to reject his evidence; therefore the conviction was properly upheld.