HKSAR v. Shun Tak Properties Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1014/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 January 2007.
1. In this appeal, a point has arisen as to whether or not what is called, “the common-law offence,” is available to the Appellant who has been convicted under Regulation 4 of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Suspended Working Platforms) Regulations.
|
HCMA1014/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA1014/2006 (ON APPEAL FROM ESS 7775/2006) _________________ BETWEEN
_________________ Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court Dates of Hearing: 9 January 2007 Date of Judgment: 9 January 2007 ________________ D E C I S I O N ________________ 1.In this appeal, a point has arisen as to whether or not what is called, “the common-law offence,” is available to the Appellant who has been convicted under Regulation 4 of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Suspended Working Platforms) Regulations. 2.There are different views at first instance on the general availability of such a defence, and it seems to me the matter needs to be resolved as a matter of some urgency because when such prosecutions or similar ones are undertaken in the Magistrates’ Court some magistrates say it applies, some do not. That is a an unsatisfactory state of affairs. 3.Accordingly, I am going to exercise, at the invitation of both parties, my power under Section 118(1)(d) to reserve the appeal to the Court of Appeal and that is the order I make today.
Representation: Mr Joseph Wong, Senior Government Counsel, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Mr Toby R W Jenkyn-Jones, instructed by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, for the Appellant |
Further hearings and rulings under HCMA 1014/2006