.png){kind=tracking}
Police Unlawful Seizure Hong Kong: Court Condemns Conduct as Incompetent
- Anna Lau
- Jul 28, 2020
- 3 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
Author: Anna Lau, Litigation Partner
Police unlawful seizure in Hong Kong remains a serious legal issue, particularly where improper exercise of powers results in financial loss and reputational damage. The case of Chun Sang Plastics Company Limited v Commissioner of Police & Secretary for Justice [2018] HKCFI 661 highlights the consequences of procedural failures and misuse of authority.
After ten years of litigation, the Plaintiff was awarded damages for loss of profits caused by the unlawful seizure and detention of goods. The Court strongly criticised the conduct of the police, describing it as demonstrating a “high degree of ignorance and incompetence”.
Background
Following complaints relating to allegedly dishonoured cheques, the police accused the Plaintiff of handling stolen goods and seized its containers.
The Plaintiff was in fact a bona fide purchaser, and the seizure caused substantial losses, including:
loss of profits.
reputational damage.
The Court ultimately found that the police had acted unlawfully in seizing and detaining the goods.
Finding 1: Impulsive Judgement
The Court found that the police acted prematurely based on unsubstantiated allegations.
Rather than directing the complainants to pursue civil remedies, the police:
mischaracterised the dispute.
wrongfully treated it as a criminal matter.
incriminated an innocent party.
Finding 2: Unlawful Detention of Goods
The police failed to comply with section 28(1) of the Theft Ordinance (Cap 210), which requires a warrant for seizure.
The Court emphasised that:
a warrant application requires full disclosure of all relevant evidence.
available evidence supported the Plaintiff’s ownership.
the complainants failed to establish any ownership claim.
The Court inferred that the police avoided applying for a warrant because they knew such application would likely fail. Their reliance on alleged inherent powers under the Police Force Ordinance was rejected.
Finding 3: Attempts at Justification
The police attempted to justify their actions by suggesting alternative explanations for the ownership of the containers.
The Court criticised these efforts as:
defensive.
inconsistent.
indicative of attempts to rationalise earlier misconduct.
The Department of Justice also provided conflicting advice, further compounding the situation.
Finding 4: Irresponsible Conduct
The Court found that the conduct of the police and related authorities prolonged the Plaintiff’s losses. This included:
attempts to join claims unnecessarily.
failure to comply with court orders to release the goods.
continued inaction despite clear legal obligations.
Judge Seagroatt described the conduct as effectively “sitting back” while the Plaintiff continued to suffer.
Key Takeaways
This case illustrates important principles:
public authorities must strictly comply with statutory powers.
improper seizure may lead to substantial damages claims.
failure to follow legal procedures undermines enforcement actions.
court orders must be complied with without delay.
The decision serves as a warning regarding abuse or misapplication of enforcement powers.
How Ravenscroft & Schmierer Can Help?
Ravenscroft & Schmierer advises clients on disputes arising from unlawful seizure, misuse of public powers, and claims against authorities in Hong Kong. The firm assists businesses in recovering losses, challenging improper enforcement actions, and navigating complex litigation involving public bodies. Clients seeking further guidance may contact us.
FAQ: Police Unlawful Seizure Hong Kong
What is unlawful seizure in Hong Kong law?
Unlawful seizure occurs when authorities take possession of property without proper legal basis or without complying with statutory requirements.
Can police seize goods without a warrant?
In most cases, a warrant is required unless specific legal exceptions apply.
What remedies are available for unlawful seizure?
Affected parties may claim damages for financial loss, including loss of profits and reputational damage.
What is the role of the court in such cases?
The court assesses whether the authorities acted lawfully and whether proper procedures were followed.
Why is compliance with statutory powers important?
Failure to comply may invalidate enforcement actions and expose authorities to legal liability.
How can Ravenscroft and Schmierer assist with unlawful seizure cases?
The firm provides guidance on challenging unlawful actions by authorities and pursuing claims for damages.
Why work with Ravenscroft and Schmierer on disputes involving public authorities?
The firm provides practical legal guidance on resolving disputes involving public law and regulatory issues in Hong Kong.
Disclaimer: Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article it is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice of any kind. You should seek your own personal legal advice before taking legal action. We accept no liability whatsoever for loss arising out of the use or misuse of this article.
For specific advice about your situation, please contact:
Litigation Partner
+852 2388 3899