[1978] HKLR 355

Criminal law and procedure - appeals against conviction and sentence -

conviction of company and individuals under Buildings Ordinance - whether
appellants properly convicted - whether sentences manifestly excessive.

Jones Construction Co. Ltd., the fourth appellant, was a building contractor which built a building in
Kwun Tong in 1971. In 1975 cracks appeared in various portions of the building and all four appellants
were subsequently convicted of various offences under the Buildings Ordinance. The offences related
to defective concrete and deviations from the plan in certain upper floors of the building.

The first and third appellants were both directors of the fourth appellant. The third appellant's duties did
not include inspecting the building regularly as his part of the construction was completed after the
foundation stage. Thereafter he did, however, sign certain documents, including the completion
certificate, relating to the construction. The second appellant was employed by the fourth appellant as
the site foreman for the job. He and the first appellant shared the responsibility for supervising the
construction after the foundation stage.

The first appellant was sentenced to a total of 11 months' imprisonment, the second appellant to a total
of 7 weeks' imprisonment and the third appellant to a total of 8 months' Imprisonment. The fourth
appellant was fined a total of $6,000.

Held:

1. There was nothing in the Crown's case to connect the third appellant with the defects
except his signature of the completion certificate and it would be unsafe and unsatisfactory to
permit his conviction to stand. His appeal would therefore be allowed.

2. The fourth appellant had a statutory duty continually to supervise the construction and
it must be taken to have known this and the purpose of such supervision. Its appeal would
therefore be dismissed.

3. The fourth appellant delegated its duty to the first and second appellants and the
existence of the defective concrete and the deviations was wholly incompatible with the
observance of their duties. Their appeals against conviction would therefore be dismissed.

4. The public interest required an immediate custodial sentence in the case of the first and
second appellant, although not a lengthly one. Their appeals against sentence would accordingly
be allowed. The first appellant would go to prison for 2 months and the second appellant for 1
month.

Third appellant's appeal against conviction allowed. Remaining appeals against conviction dismissed.
Appeal by first and second appellants against sentence allowed.

CHUNG YAT AND OTHERS AND THE QUEEN [1978] HKLR 355, 19th - 23rd June;
20th July 1978, High Court, Leonard J.