Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strict liability vs mens rea

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2018

HKSAR v. DUMAYAG, ANALYN PEDRO

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA668/2016

Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the prosecutor's failure to cross-examine the appellant on critical credibility issues, combined with the magistrate's reliance on those unchallenged criticisms, breached the rule in Browne v Dunn and rendered the conviction unsafe, notwithstanding that the magistrate correctly declined to stay proceedings on trafficking grounds.
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)…
18 Dec 2000

HKSAR v. CHIU TERESITA D. AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIU TERESITA D. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA635/2000

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate acted within law in amending the charge under s27 after finding no injustice, the magistrate was not obliged to give reasons at the no-case stage and the factual findings (including inference of the licensee's knowledge and application of vicarious liability under s46A(1) with failure to discharge defence under s46A(2)) were open on the evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.
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.
19 Mar 1980

TAI MUK-KWAI t/a NAN LIEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TAI MUK-KWAI t/a NAN LIEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1129/1979

The magistrate was justified in accepting the Government Chemist's evidence and there was sufficient evidence to conclude the exhibits contained Indomethacin; on the record the appellate court could properly find Indomethacin had been deliberately inserted during manufacture, section 37 did not apply, and the convictions were safe and must be upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. DUMAYAG, ANALYN PEDRO

HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG

HKSAR v. CHIU TERESITA D. AND OTHERS

TSANG OI MUI AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

TAI MUK-KWAI t/a NAN LIEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN