The 2024 Award Scheme for Learning Experiences under the Qualifications Framework (QF) will open for applications from tomorrow (March 15) until May 31. Practitioners from 23 industries implementing the QF (see Annex) are … read more
Two property owners who failed to comply with removal orders issued under the Buildings Ordinance (BO) (Cap. 123) were convicted and fined over $140,000 in total at the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Courts last month.
The first case involved an unauthorised structure with an area of about 95 square meters re-erected (after previous removal) on the roof of a residential building on Lok Chui Street, Tuen Mun and four supporting frames for air-conditioning units attached to the relevant parapet wall. As the unauthorised building works (UBWs) were carried out without the prior approval and consent from the Buildings Department (BD), a removal order was served on the owner under section 24(1) of the BO.
Failing to comply with the removal order, the owner was prosecuted by the BD, and the hearing was held at the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Courts on February 23. The owner was fined $67,260 upon conviction, although during the hearing the owner alleged that the UBWs had been removed.
The second case involved three unauthorised structures with a total area of about 50 square metres erected on the flat roof of a composite building on Luk Yuen Street, Tuen Mun. As the UBWs were carried out without the prior approval and consent from the BD, a removal order was served on the owner under section 24(1) of the BO.
Failing to comply with the removal order, the owner was prosecuted by the BD and was fined $76,200 upon conviction at the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Courts on February 23.
A spokesman for the BD said today (March 14), “UBWs may lead to serious consequences. Owners must comply with removal orders without delay. The BD will continue to take enforcement action against owners who have failed to comply with removal orders, including instigation of prosecution, so as to ensure building safety.”
Failure to comply with a removal order without reasonable excuse is a serious offence under the BO. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $200,000 and one year’s imprisonment, and a further fine of $20,000 for each day that the offence continues. read more
Attention TV/radio announcers: Please broadcast the following as soon as possible: Here is an item of interest to swimmers. The Leisure and Cultural Services Department announced toda… read more
The following is issued on behalf of the Judiciary:
The Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) is cohosting the eighth Judicial Seminar on Commercial Litigation with the Supreme Court of New South Wales of Australia and the Supreme Court of Singapore in Hong Kong today (March 14) and tomorrow (March 15).
This year’s Seminar is attended by four Chief Justices and 30 other senior judges from 10 jurisdictions throughout Asia and the Pacific region. Apart from the hosting jurisdictions, senior judges from the Federal Court of Australia and the Supreme People’s Court of Mainland China, as well as other jurisdictions including Brunei Darussalam, New Zealand, Japan and Malaysia, also participate in the Seminar.
The Seminar this year focuses on legal issues associated with cross-border insolvency, cryptocurrency, illegality, and other topical aspects of commercial litigation. The Seminar also examines different ways in which courts of different jurisdictions may enhance procedural justice and efficiency.
In his opening address delivered at the Seminar today, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of the HKSAR, extended his warmest welcome to all participants, saying that the Judiciary of the HKSAR was honoured to have the Seminar held in Hong Kong.
Chief Justice Cheung said, with the framework of commercial law in place, rights are protected, relationships are established, conduct is regulated, risk is predictable and minimised, disputes can be resolved, business can grow, consumers can be protected and fair competition is promoted. On the international level, this is crucial for ensuring growth and economic integration.
The two-day Seminar provides a convenient forum for senior judges of the participating jurisdictions to exchange views and share experiences in relation to best practices in the management of commercial and corporate litigation, and facilitates mutual understanding of matters relating to cross-border commercial activities. It also helps strengthen ties among the participants and build up their legal expertise in meeting new challenges that commercial disputes continue to present to them.
The Judicial Seminar on Commercial Litigation is an event convened jointly by the courts of the HKSAR, Singapore and New South Wales generally every two to three years. The three jurisdictions take turns to hold the Seminar. It is the third time for Hong Kong to hold the Seminar, with two previous editions in 2010 and 2016. The last Seminar was held virtually by the Supreme Court of Singapore in 2022. read more
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government on March 13 expressed its strongest condemnation against the statement by anti-China organisation “Hong Kong Watch” together with 16 co-signatories, which deliberately misled the public and smeared the requirement on “disclosure of commission by others of offence of treason” in the Basic Law Article 23 legislation that it targets religions, attempting to provoke discontent among religious personnel and followers against the legislation.
A spokesman for the Government said, “The offences of treason and misprision of treason, no matter in Hong Kong or in other common law jurisdictions, have existed for a long time. They do not target religious personnel or followers, and have nothing to do with freedom of religion. In any case, freedom of religion is not for protecting anyone who has committed serious offences from legal sanctions. Besides, ‘Hong Kong Watch’ has omitted to mention an important fact, i.e. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which was based on Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) clearly stipulates that freedom of religion may be subject to limitations to protect public safety, order, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
“The HKSAR Government has proposed to codify the offence of misprision of treason under the common law as the requirement on ‘disclosure of commission by others of offence of treason’ with appropriate enhancement. However, anti-China organisation ‘Hong Kong Watch’ and the co-signatories forcibly linked the relevant requirement to freedom of religion to, on one hand, smear the legislative work using religion as a pretext and, on the other hand, attempt to provoke the repulsion of the religious personnel and followers against the HKSAR Government. They even made demagogic and exaggerated remarks in an attempt to mislead the international community into believing that the proposal by the HKSAR Government runs contrary to the international standard, thereby creating a negative impression of the Basic Law Article 23 legislation, demonstrating their malicious intention. It is necessary for the HKSAR Government to express its strongest condemnation.
“First, ordinary citizens, regardless of whether they are religious personnel or followers or not, would absolutely not commit treason. Treason is an extremely serious and very rare offence endangering national security, which will only be violated in extreme conditions, including levying war against China, or instigating a foreign country to invade China with force. If a person really conducts such acts and activities, it would be absolutely reasonable, necessary and justified to request the Chinese citizen who knows about the acts to disclose the commission of the offence to the law enforcement agencies of the HKSAR, so that the law enforcement agencies can take timely enforcement actions in accordance with the law to protect the lives and property of the community.
“We must also point out that, misprision of treason remains a common law offence in the United Kingdom; while countries with a common law system, including the United States, Canada and Singapore, have codified the offence of misprision of treason, and the above-mentioned countries have not specify relevant exceptions. ‘Hong Kong Watch’ and the co-signatories have not mentioned the relevant provisions in the countries concerned before groundlessly attacking under the guise of religious matters the HKSAR Government’s legislative work on safeguarding national security. It is a blatant, shameless and barbaric intervention, and is also a typical example of double standards.
“Not only is ‘Hong Kong Watch’ an anti-China organisation, many of its members are also anti-China and destabilising forces in the front line, who have called for so-called ‘sanctions’ by foreign countries against officials of the Central People’s Government and the HKSAR Government repeatedly. Members of the public in Hong Kong, the religious sector and the international community should see the organisation in its true colours and not to be misled by its erroneous remarks with ulterior motives.” read more