Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strict liability offences

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2025

香港特別行政區訴賈振偉及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2753
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA94/2024

A1’s unequivocal admission that he did not know the nature of the oil justified the inference that his authorised keeper likewise did not know, breaching reg 132 and sustaining conviction; A2, as licence holder, allowed illegal transshipment by failing to take reasonable steps to secure the tanker (presence of intact locks and availability of keys to start and open shutdown valves and strong inferential evidence of ongoing illegal transshipment), thereby contravening licence condition s9B; both convictions are safe beyond reasonable doubt.
22 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴必高工程有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1612
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA215/2024

The appeal is dismissed because on re‑hearing the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant failed to prove on the requisite standard an honest and reasonable belief that the site was free of mosquito larvae; the trial judge correctly found the inspection regime either inadequate or poorly executed and rejected the defence as unsupported by the evidence.
15 May 2023

香港特別行政區訴李鍚均

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA119/2022

The trial judge's adverse credibility findings and factual determinations were open on the evidence; the appellant failed to discharge the evidential threshold and in any event did not make the reasonable efforts required by s.18(2) (such as opening the fuel cap and smelling), so the statutory defence was not available and the Crown proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence of 8 weeks' immediate imprisonment was lawful and not manifestly excessive.
25 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. PUN KAM HUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2600
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA183/2022

The Court upheld the magistrate's increase from the 3-month guideline to a total of 6 months concurrent, holding that the magistrate properly relied on the appellant's admissions and relevant aggravating features (deliberate employment of multiple unknown Form 8 holders for cheap labour) and that, given the deterrent purpose of s17I, the total sentence was not manifestly excessive.
2 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴誠信清潔服務有限公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3590
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA362/2019

The appellant, as the direct employer, was liable under the strict liability offence in s17I(1); the s17I(4) certificates were admissible and established that the four named individuals were not lawfully employable on the date in question; the appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden under s17I(1A) because its recruitment procedures and record-keeping were inadequate (missing ID records, no demonstrable checking process), therefore the convictions and fines were properly sustained.
11 Aug 2020

香港特別行政區訴祥興建造有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1949
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA561/2019

Where work being undertaken will necessarily or has a real and substantial possibility of touching, disturbing or interfering with asbestos-containing material, that work 'involves' handling or processing asbestos within s.75(1) Cap.311; on the facts removal of the false ceiling posed such a substantial risk to the aged, closely located asbestos-containing duct and appellants failed to establish the common law defence of honest and reasonable belief, so convictions and fines were properly upheld.
18 Sept 2018

香港特別行政區訴羅永成及另一人

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2117
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA235/2017

The application for a certificate was refused because the points raised were not novel or reasonably arguable questions of law of general public importance: the contested issues were the application of established Kulemesin principles to the facts and had already been analysed and decided in the court's judgment; the statutory text is clear and unambiguous so no real prospect of successful appeal on the alleged Chinese/English discrepancy or constitutional grounds.
22 Dec 2017

香港特別行政區訴何家威

Citation

香港特別行政區訴何家威
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA501/2017

Appeal allowed because the trial judge failed properly to address the mens rea requirement for conspiracy offences and erroneously applied s94A as removing the need to prove knowledge for a conspiracy charge; although the evidence may suffice, the correct course is to quash the convictions, stay sentence and remit the matter to the Magistrates' Court for retrial before a different magistrate.
1 Apr 2016

HKSAR v. BULLEN, CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

Citation

HKSAR v. BULLEN, CHRISTIAN ANTHONY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA740/2015

Appellant was not entitled to trial costs because the offence is one of strict liability where he bore the evidential burden of establishing a reasonable excuse only advanced at trial; however under the statutory scheme for costs on magistrates' appeals the judge may award costs on appeal and, having assessed the appellant's bill and what is reasonably sufficient to compensate a litigant in person, the court fixed costs on appeal at HK$5,000 and made no order as to costs of the costs application.
22 Jan 2008

HKSAR v. PAUL Y CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. PAUL Y CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA161/2007

The Court accepted the magistrate's factual findings and preference for the prosecution metallurgical expert: the failed pins were medium carbon substandard pins (not Potaine originals), they fractured by reverse bending fatigue over months with rusting and working-out occurring prior to collapse making the condition patent on proper inspection, and the appellants failed to prove due diligence; therefore the convictions under the lifting-gear regulations are upheld.