User:廣九直通車/siu94

AI

There's no doubt that generative AIs like S**e and Chat**T have proliferated people's life during early 2023, which is also probably a notorious fact that can be judicially noticed. I fed them with a few legal questions. The result? Honestly, woeful: they're simply worse than ⑨ [as of early 2023].

Edit: And unfortunately there seems to have an irresponsible lad who make up fake case law using generative AIs. He shall be greeted with disciplinary actions.

Here're some hilarious answers:

Wrong answers

Q1: What are the key rulings of Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965?

AI's answer:

Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 is a landmark case in the law of sedition in Singapore. The key rulings of this case are:

1. Definition of Sedition: The court held that sedition is conduct, speech, or writing that has the intention of bringing into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection against the Government of Singapore.
2. Intent is Key: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to create disaffection against the government.
3. Freedom of Speech: The court recognized that freedom of speech is important, but that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the need to maintain social order and national security.
4. Public Interest: The court held that the public interest in maintaining the security and stability of Singapore is paramount, and that any speech or conduct that threatens this interest may be subject to prosecution.

Overall, Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor established the legal framework for sedition in Singapore, and emphasized the importance of balancing freedom of speech with the need to maintain social order and national security.

Another AI's answer:

Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 is a landmark case in Singapore that established the legal principle of "clear and present danger" as a test for determining whether speech or expression can be restricted under the law. The key rulings of the case are as follows:

1. The Constitution of Singapore at the time did not grant absolute freedom of speech or expression, and the government had the power to restrict speech or expression that posed a clear and present danger to public order, public security, or morality.
2. The test for determining whether speech or expression posed a clear and present danger was whether the speech or expression had a tendency to lead to disorder or violence, and whether such disorder or violence was likely to happen immediately.
3. The court held that the publication of a leaflet advocating the use of violence and force to overthrow the government constituted a clear and present danger to public security and was therefore not protected under the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech or expression.
4. The court also held that the government's restriction on the publication of such leaflets was reasonable and necessary in the interests of public security.

In summary, Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor established the clear and present danger test as a legal principle for determining whether speech or expression can be restricted under the law, and held that the government had the power to restrict speech or expression that posed a clear and present danger to public order, public security, or morality.

Endnote: Total 9upping. The case defines "what constitutes hearsay evidence". Not a single word in the case is related to sedition, and one of them even make up FF like publication of a leaflet advocating the use of violence and force to overthrow the government. BTW at that time of 1956 the Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore (State Constitutions) Order in Council 1963 (S.I. 1493/1963) doesn't even exist, so the reference to Singaporean constitution is total 9up.

Q2: What are the legislative powers of the Chinese State Council?

AI's answer:

The State Council of the People's Republic of China is the highest administrative organ of the Chinese government. The legislative powers of the State Council are derived from the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Organic Law of the State Council. The legislative powers of the State Council include:

1. Promulgation of Administrative Regulations: The State Council has the power to promulgate administrative regulations that have the force of law. These regulations are subordinate to laws passed by the National People's Congress.
2. Issuance of Decrees and Orders: The State Council has the power to issue decrees and orders that have the force of law. These decrees and orders are subordinate to both laws and administrative regulations.
3. Approval of Local Regulations: The State Council has the power to approve local regulations that are passed by provincial-level people's congresses. These local regulations are subordinate to both laws and administrative regulations.
4. Interpretation of Laws: The State Council has the power to interpret laws passed by the National People's Congress. These interpretations are binding on courts and other government agencies.

Overall, the legislative powers of the State Council are limited by the Constitution and other laws, and are subordinate to the legislative powers of the National People's Congress.

Endnote: The NPC Standing Committee has the sole power to interpret law—cf. Article 48 of the Legislation Law. Administrative regulations indeed have the force of law, as long as they don't come across issues stated in Art. 11 of the Legislation Law. They are not necessary to be subordinate under laws, though laws are superior than administrative regulations. BTW for some reason the AI mentioned nothing about the Legislation Law, really absurd...

Q3: What is the oldest ordinance in Hong Kong that is still in force?

AI's answer:

The oldest ordinance in Hong Kong that is still in force is the Crimes Ordinance, which was enacted in 1900 during the British colonial period. It has undergone various amendments over the years, but remains an important piece of legislation in the jurisdiction.

Endnote: Another bull**it again. The Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) was enacted in 1971. The oldest ordinance in force is the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap. 128), enacted in 1844 as the 3rd ordinance in Hong Kong legal history. The Crimes Act 1900 in NSW, however, was indeed enacted in 1900, as its short title suggests.

Q4: Why the Queensland Criminal Code of 1995 never commenced?

AI's answer:

The Queensland Criminal Code of 1995 did eventually commence, but it did so after a delay of several years. The Code was supposed to come into force on January 1, 1997, but its implementation was delayed due to various factors, including concerns over the complexity of the new legislation, the need for extensive training of legal professionals and law enforcement officials, and the need for additional resources to support the implementation process. The delay allowed for further consultation and revision of the Code, and it finally came into effect on June 30, 1997, after the necessary preparations had been made.

Endnote: Still 9upping. Apart from some consequential amendments that commences on assent (s. 2(2)-(3)), the Criminal Code (Qld. Act 37 of 1995) never commenced according to the official Queensland law database.

Q5: Summarize the key rulings of Hysan Development v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372.

AI's answer:

In Hysan Development v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal made the following key rulings:

1. The Town Planning Board has the power to impose conditions on developers in order to ensure compliance with planning policies.
2. The Board can also require developers to provide certain facilities or amenities as part of their development projects.
3. The Board's decision-making process must be transparent and fair, and it must take into account relevant considerations.
4. The court will defer to the Board's expertise in matters of town planning, but it will still review the Board's decisions to ensure that they are reasonable and lawful.
5. The court can set aside a decision of the Board if it is found to be irrational, procedurally improper, or outside the Board's legal powers.

Overall, the case affirmed the importance of the Town Planning Board's role in regulating development in Hong Kong and ensuring that it is consistent with the broader goals of the city's planning policies.

Endnote: Well, at least it's not as wild as the Subramaniam case one. The case is indeed about real-estate development, but it's more about proportionality instead of whether its reasonable. One of the AI did give a better answer, see below.

Q6: What is the jurisdiction of Judiciary Police (Polícia Judiciária) in Macau? (refined question)

AI's answer:

The Judiciary Police (Polícia Judiciária) in Macau is responsible for criminal investigation and law enforcement within the territory. Its jurisdiction covers all criminal offenses committed in Macau, including crimes against individuals, property, and the public order.

The Judiciary Police has the power to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses, conduct searches and seizures, make arrests, and gather evidence. It also works closely with other law enforcement agencies, such as the Public Security Police Force, to maintain public safety and order.

In addition to its criminal investigation functions, the Judiciary Police is also responsible for providing security and protection for certain public figures and institutions, such as the Chief Executive and the Legislative Assembly.

Endnote: Obviously close protection is incorrect: this is the responsibility of the CPSP (Art. 6(2)(10), Law 14/2018 (Public Security Police Force)). Neither the judiciary police has the power to conduct prosecution. While most of them aren't that wrong, I would say everything is too general in this question, like, the AI replied nothing about the specific jurisdictions of the judiciary police specified in Article 7 of Law 5/2006 (Judiciary Police). Unsatisfactory at the end.

Q7: State the rulings of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1.

AI's answer:

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1 is a landmark case in Hong Kong that concerned the interpretation of the Basic Law, which is the constitutional document that governs Hong Kong's relationship with the People's Republic of China. The case had far-reaching implications for the legal system of Hong Kong and the nature of its relationship with the Chinese government.

The key rulings of the case are as follows:

1. The Basic Law is not a statute of Hong Kong, but rather a constitutional document that forms part of the law of Hong Kong. As such, it has a higher legal status than ordinary legislation.
2. The Basic Law is a "mini-constitution" that sets out the fundamental principles of the Hong Kong legal system and the basic rights and freedoms of its citizens. It is not intended to be a comprehensive code that covers every aspect of Hong Kong law.
3. The Hong Kong courts have the power and duty to interpret the Basic Law and to ensure that it is enforced in Hong Kong. This includes the power to declare unconstitutional any legislation that is inconsistent with the Basic Law.
4. The Chinese government has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the Basic Law is upheld in Hong Kong. However, this does not mean that the Chinese government has the power to interpret the Basic Law or to interfere with the independence of the Hong Kong courts.

Overall, the rulings of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong affirmed the importance of the Basic Law as the foundation of the Hong Kong legal system and emphasized the role of the Hong Kong courts in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.

Endnote: Another total bulls**t. This is a case concerning what makes an offence strict liability, nothing constitutional. Also everyone knows ^{[citation needed]} the Hong Kong Basic Law was promulgated in 1990, so for sure the same kind of 9upping as Q1 of this section.

Q8: Explain the proportionality test as decided in Hysan Development v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372.

GPT-4 answer:

The Hysan Development v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372 case is a landmark judgment in Hong Kong administrative law. It dealt with the proportionality test, which is a principle used by courts to determine whether a restriction on a constitutional right is justified and therefore lawful.

In this case, the appellant, Hysan Development Company Limited, challenged the restrictions imposed by the Town Planning Board on the permissible plot ratio (i.e., the ratio of the total floor area of a building to the size of the land on which it is built) for certain areas in Hong Kong. Hysan argued that the restrictions violated their constitutional right to use and develop their land, protected under the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

The Court of Final Appeal (CFA) in Hong Kong, in its judgment, adopted a three-stage proportionality test to determine whether the restrictions were justified. The test consists of the following stages:

1. Legitimate aim: The court must first determine whether the restriction serves a legitimate aim. In Hysan, the CFA accepted that the restrictions were intended to achieve a balance between the competing interests of sustainable urban development and the protection of Hong Kong's natural environment.
2. Rational connection: The court must then determine whether the restriction is rationally connected to the legitimate aim. This means that the restriction must be logically related to the aim and should not be arbitrary or manifestly without reason. In the Hysan case, the CFA found that there was a rational connection between the plot ratio restrictions and the legitimate aim of balanced urban development.
3. Proportionality stricto sensu: Finally, the court must decide whether the restriction is no more than necessary to achieve the legitimate aim, weighing the importance of the aim against the severity of the restriction on the constitutional right. This involves a balancing exercise, considering whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective. In Hysan, the CFA ultimately concluded that the restrictions were proportionate, as they struck a fair balance between the competing interests and did not impose an excessive burden on the appellant's property rights.

The Hysan case is significant as it marked the first time that the Hong Kong courts explicitly adopted the proportionality test as a general principle of judicial review. This test has since been applied in various other cases involving challenges to governmental restrictions on constitutional rights.

Endnote: Everything seems correct, except the Hysan case laid down a 4-step proportionality test instead of 3. Given by the fact that it's a response from proprietary AI, that's an absolutely disappointed answer.

Q9: What is the maximum term of imprisonment in Macau?

AI's answer:

The maximum term of imprisonment in Macau is 25 years, according to the Macau Penal Code. However, there are certain crimes that have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, such as murder with aggravating circumstances or crimes against national security. The exact length of imprisonment for a particular crime will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the discretion of the judge.

Endnote: Except that under the Macau Penal Code, life imprisonment is absolutely prohibited under all cases, even for the upcoming National Security Law on steroids (Article 39(1) of the Code). The AI also failed to mention that if the defendant is convicted of more than 1 charge, the maximum term of imprisonment is 30 years or the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment of all of the offences, whichever is lower (Article 71(2) of the Code).

Q10(a): State the powers that were exercisable by Hong Kong authorities under the Emergency (Principal) Regulations (before its repeal in 1995).

AI's answer:

The Emergency (Principal) Regulations in Hong Kong were introduced during the colonial era and granted the Governor of Hong Kong and other designated officials extensive powers to deal with emergencies or situations of public danger. The regulations were repealed in 1995, but during their existence, the Hong Kong authorities had the power to:

1. Restrict freedom of movement: The regulations allowed for the imposition of curfews, the closure of roads, and the restriction of the movement of people and vehicles.
2. Control public gatherings: The authorities had the power to ban or disperse public gatherings, including protests, rallies, and demonstrations.
3. Control the media: The regulations enabled the authorities to control the media and censor or prohibit publications or broadcasts that were deemed to be harmful to public safety or order.
4. Detain individuals: The authorities had the power to detain individuals without trial, and to impose house arrest or other forms of confinement.
5. Seize property: The regulations allowed for the seizure of property, including buildings and vehicles, if they were deemed to be necessary for the maintenance of public safety or order.
6. Control essential services: The authorities had the power to take control of essential services, such as water, electricity, and telecommunications, to ensure their continued operation during emergencies.

It's important to note that the Emergency (Principal) Regulations were viewed by some as a tool for suppressing political dissent, and were controversial in Hong Kong during the latter years of colonial rule.

Endnote: Curfews, freedom of movement restrictions and public gathering control are dealt under Parts III and VII of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245). Most probably essential services are regulated by Essential Services Corps Ordinance (Cap. 197) in case of emergencies. Moreover the Regulations have been fell into disuse after the 1967 riots.

Q10(b): (Just after Q10(a)) Tell me more.

AI's answer:

The Emergency (Principal) Regulations were first introduced in Hong Kong in 1922, during the colonial era, and were initially intended to deal with emergencies such as natural disasters, epidemics, and civil unrest. However, over time, the regulations were used by colonial officials as a tool for suppressing political dissent and opposition, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s.

During this period, Hong Kong saw a rise in political activism, including protests and demonstrations against colonial rule and for greater democracy. The authorities often used the Emergency Regulations to suppress these activities, with measures such as banning marches and rallies, detaining activists without trial, and censoring the media.

One of the most infamous uses of the Emergency Regulations in Hong Kong was during the 1967 Leftist riots, which erupted after a labour dispute and escalated into a violent confrontation between left-wing protesters and the police. The authorities used the Emergency Regulations to detain thousands of people without trial, ban all public gatherings, and censor news reports about the riots.

The use of the Emergency Regulations in Hong Kong became increasingly controversial during the 1980s and 1990s, as the colony approached the 1997 handover to China. Critics argued that the regulations were a vestige of colonial power that had no place in a modern, democratic society, and that they could be used by the Chinese authorities to suppress political dissent after the handover.

In response to these concerns, the Hong Kong government repealed the Emergency (Principal) Regulations in 1995, shortly before the handover. However, some of the powers granted by the regulations, such as the power to detain individuals without trial, were incorporated into Hong Kong's post-handover laws under the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance, which have continued to be controversial in their own right.

Endnote: The Regulations are made in 1949, though the Ordinance itself is enacted in 1922 (which is correct). I would leave paragraphs 2 and 3 as statements of opinion, as whether the leftists at the 1950-1960s are "democracy activists" is obviously debatable. From a Constitutional Affairs Branch (now Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau) document (DOC), it seems that the Regulations were repealed for inconsistency over the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (also correct).

Q11: What are some recent Measures passed by the General Synod [of the Church of England]?

AI's answer:

As an AI language model, my training data only goes up to 2021, and I do not have access to real-time information. However, I can give you some examples of Measures passed by the General Synod in recent years:

• In 2018, the General Synod passed a Measure to enable the Church of England to offer a formal blessing to couples in civil partnerships, as well as to provide a liturgy to mark the formation of such partnerships.
• In 2019, the General Synod passed a Measure to allow the Church of England to divest from fossil fuel companies that are not taking sufficient action to address climate change.
• Also in 2019, the General Synod passed a Measure to allow for the creation of new forms of ministry, including lay-led services and pioneer ministries.
• In 2020, the General Synod passed a Measure to modernize the Church of England's legislative process, making it more transparent and accessible to lay people.

These are just a few examples of the Measures passed by the General Synod in recent years. The Church of England's website has more information on the General Synod and its legislative activities, including a list of Measures going back to the 1920s.

Endnote: Except everything labelled in red doesn't appear in the list of church measures.

Q12(a): What is the relation between Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1960?

N.B. there's a typo in the question: I should have wrote Part I instead of Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

AI's answer:

Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 both relate to the power of the Court of Appeal to review and quash convictions and sentences in criminal cases.

Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 provides for the right of an individual to appeal against their conviction or sentence to the Court of Appeal. This part of the Act sets out the grounds for appeal, the procedures for lodging an appeal, and the powers of the Court of Appeal in hearing and determining such appeals.

Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, on the other hand, provides for what is known as the "reference" procedure. This allows the Attorney General, on behalf of the Crown, to refer a case to the Court of Appeal for review if he or she believes that the conviction or sentence is "unduly lenient". This means that the sentence is not proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and does not reflect the gravity of the crime committed.

Therefore, while Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 allows individuals to appeal against their conviction or sentence, Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 allows the Attorney General to refer a case to the Court of Appeal for review if he or she believes that the sentence is unduly lenient.

Endnote: Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 relates to final appeal to the SCOTUK (and formerly the UKHL), and appeals to the EWCA is dealt under Part I of the 1968 Act. Prosecution appeals related to unduly lenient sentences are dealt under Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33).

Q12(b): What is the relation between Part I of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1960?

AI's answer:

Part I of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 are both related to the right of appeal in criminal cases in England and Wales, but they differ in their scope and application.

Part I of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 established a unified system of appeal for criminal cases in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It created a new Court of Appeal, which replaced the old system of separate appellate courts for different types of criminal cases. The Court of Appeal was given broad powers to hear appeals against conviction or sentence in criminal cases, and it was also given the power to review unduly lenient sentences.

Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, on the other hand, deals specifically with appeals against conviction in criminal cases heard in the Crown Court. It provides a right of appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of error of law or fact, or on the grounds of new evidence. This Act also gives the Court of Appeal the power to order a retrial in certain circumstances.

In summary, while both Part I of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 relate to the right of appeal in criminal cases in England and Wales, the Criminal Appeal Act is more comprehensive and establishes a unified system of appeal for all types of criminal cases, while the Administration of Justice Act is more specific and deals with appeals against conviction in Crown Court cases.

Endnote: Even crazier than the response from Q12(a)... In terms of the stupid British geographic jurisdictions, the Courts of Appeal are never unified throughout the UK. It is also quite unimaginable that different appellate courts govern different criminal cases — you AI is born in the era where ecclesiastical courts have extrajudicial privileges??? And also it's also clearly that the reply about Part I of the 1960 Act is different from the previous question, and unfortunately still wrong. That part governs EWHC cases that appeals to SCOTUK (and obviously, formerly the UKHL).

Q13: According to the Application of English Law Act, what Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom apply to Singapore?

AI's answer:

The Application of English Law Act (Chapter 7 of the Singapore Statutes) specifies that the following Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom apply to Singapore:

1. The Imperial Acts (which are Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed before 1st April 1966) that were in force in Singapore before that date.
2. The Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that are specified in the Schedule to the Act.

The Schedule to the Act currently specifies a list of 11 Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, including the Bills of Exchange Act, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and the Civil Aviation Act. However, it is important to note that this list is not exhaustive and may be updated from time to time by the Minister for Law.

Endnote: First we have a wrong citation: the Application of English Law Act 1993 was cited as (Cap. 7A, 1994 Ed.) before the 2021 Revised Edition came into force. The Act also has 2 Schedules, so the AI's response is also unduly confusing. Section 5(1) of the AELA made it clear that no English enactment is part of Singaporean law, the Bills of Exchange Act 1949 (formerly Cap. 23, 2004 Ed.) originates from Malaysia, and there's no "Civil Aviation Act" in Singapore. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is Singaporean legislation (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1972, formerly Cap. 33, 1998 Ed.), although they indeed copied the British Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 (c. 50) and renamed it into Bills of Lading Act 1992 (formerly Cap. 384, 1994 Ed.). The benefit of doubt will be given here.

Q14: State some Malaysian legislation that were extended to Singapore.

AI's answer:

:After Singapore's separation from Malaysia in 1965, a number of Malaysian laws were extended to Singapore until they were repealed or replaced by Singaporean laws. Some examples of Malaysian legislation that were extended to Singapore include:

1. Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1964 - This ordinance was extended to Singapore in 1965 and provided for the exercise of emergency powers in the event of a national emergency.
2. Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 - This act was extended to Singapore in 2018 to enhance cooperation between Malaysia and Singapore in combating corruption.
3. Malaysian Aviation Commission Act 2015 - This act was extended to Singapore in 2018 to facilitate air services between the two countries.
4. Labuan Companies Act 1990 - This act was extended to Singapore in 1998 to allow for the incorporation of Labuan companies in Singapore.
5. Malaysian Companies Act 1965 - This act was extended to Singapore until 1967 when it was replaced by the Companies Act (Chapter 50) of Singapore.

It is important to note that the extension of Malaysian legislation to Singapore is no longer common practice, as Singapore has developed its own legal system and has enacted its own laws to suit its specific needs and circumstances.

Endnote: Another prime example of 9upping by AI. Of all of the legislation only the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1964, later revised and cited as Emergency (Essential Powers) Act (Cap. 90, 1985 Ed.) was correct. But even this was ultimately repealed by Statute Law Reform Act 2021.

Q15(a): What is the saving clause for private bills, as required by the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region?

AI's answer:

According to Rule 153(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the saving clause for private bills is as follows:

"Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing the Legislative Council from passing any private bill which is found to be expedient, notwithstanding that it may affect the prerogative, right, title or interest of the Government or of any person, except that no such private bill shall be passed unless the Legislative Council shall, before giving the bill its final reading, have received a certificate from the Secretary for Justice that the bill is not inconsistent with the Basic Law and other relevant laws."

In essence, this clause states that the Legislative Council may still pass a private bill that may affect the government or any person's prerogative, right, title, or interest if it is deemed expedient. However, before the final reading of the bill, the Secretary for Justice must issue a certificate stating that the bill is not inconsistent with the Basic Law and other relevant laws.

Endnote: I thought this would be easy for the AI to search and destroy the question directly, it turns out it can still produce a totally wrong answer: the format is given by Rule 50(8) of the Rules of Procedure, and it simply fails to copy-paste my expected results. Also the RoP mentioned nothing on the constitutionality ruling of bill by the SJ.

Q15(b) (following Q15(a)): The provision is wrong. Please double check.

AI's answer:

I apologize for the mistake in my previous response. Upon further research, I have found that the correct provision regarding the saving clause for private bills in the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is Rule 155(4), which states:

. . . (Same content)

Endnote: Absolutely disappointed. I pointed out the problem, and they just altered the number to pretend it's the correct one...

Partially correct answers

Q1: What are the operating requirements of category A1 UAV under the Small Unmanned Aircraft Order (Cap. 448G)?

AI's answer:

Under the Small Unmanned Aircraft Order (Cap. 448G) in Hong Kong, a category A1 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is defined as one that weighs 250 grams or less and is equipped with a low-risk energy source. The operating requirements for category A1 UAVs are as follows:

1. The UAV must be flown within the visual line of sight of the remote pilot, who must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the UAV at all times.
2. The UAV must not be flown higher than 30 meters above ground level, or within 50 meters of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure that is not under the control of the remote pilot.
3. The UAV must not be flown in restricted areas, such as areas that are designated for use by manned aircraft or areas that are designated as no-fly zones.
4. The remote pilot must not operate the UAV in a manner that could endanger any person, property or other aircraft.
5. The UAV must not be flown at night or in adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain, fog or strong winds.
6. The remote pilot must have obtained relevant training and certification from a recognized provider.
7. The UAV must be registered with the Civil Aviation Department and display a registration mark.

It is important for remote pilots to understand and comply with these operating requirements in order to ensure safe and legal operation of their category A1 UAV in Hong Kong.

Endnote: Somehow correct? I mean, the definition for category A1 UAV is indeed correct (s. 3(2)(a)), a registration label is indeed required (s. 11(1)(b)), and the maximum height is also indeed approximately 30m from ground level according to the CAD's (para. (3), G.N. 1276 of 2022). The distance requirement for people, structures and vehicles are however, wrong: the correct limit is at least 10m (paras. (5) and (7), G.N. 1276 of 2022). Also I suspect a number of requirements are common sense, most notably no-fly zones.

Q2: Summarize the key rulings of Hysan Development v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372:

Another AI's answer:

Hysan Development v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372 is a landmark case in Hong Kong that concerned the legality of a development project in the Causeway Bay shopping district. The key rulings of the case are as follows:

1. The court held that the Town Planning Board had the power to impose a height restriction on the proposed development project, even though the restriction was not explicitly stated in the relevant zoning plan.
2. The court also held that the Town Planning Board had the power to interpret and apply the zoning plan, and that its interpretation and application of the plan was entitled to deference from the court.
3. The court held that the Town Planning Board's decision to impose the height restriction was not irrational or unreasonable, and that it was based on legitimate planning considerations, such as the need to preserve the character of the neighborhood and to prevent overcrowding and congestion.
4. The court rejected the developer's argument that the height restriction amounted to a deprivation of property rights without compensation, and held that the restriction did not substantially interfere with the developer's reasonable expectations of profit.

In summary, Hysan Development v Town Planning Board established the Town Planning Board's power to impose height restrictions and to interpret and apply zoning plans, and held that its decisions were entitled to deference from the court. The case also clarified the scope of property rights in the context of land development in Hong Kong.

Endnote: This answer did provide the correct context of the case, although the height restrictions are explicit (para. 4), and permanent judge RAV Ribeiro mentioned nothing about the Town Planning Board's interpretation power. The AI also mentioned something about property rights. Nevertheless, nothing about the revised proportionality test were mentioned.

Q3: What are the key amendments introduced by the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 in Singapore?

AI's answer:

The Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 introduced several key amendments to Singapore's criminal law. Some of these amendments include:

1. Introducing a new offence of voyeurism, which criminalizes the act of recording or capturing images of a person's private parts without their consent.
2. Expanding the definition of sexual penetration to include any form of penetration with an object, not just genitalia.
3. Increasing penalties for certain sexual offences, including rape and sexual assault.
4. Criminalizing the act of sending threatening or harassing messages online, known as "cyberbullying."
5. Introducing a new offence of incitement to violence or racial and religious hatred.
6. Allowing courts to consider alternative sentencing options, such as community service or counseling, for certain offences.
7. Overall, the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 aimed to strengthen Singapore's criminal justice system and better protect its citizens from harm.

Endnote: Voyeurism is indeed introduced by the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 (CLRA) as section 377BB in the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Ed.) (ins. by s. 120 of CLRA), the definition of sexual penetration is also revised by CLRA (s. 121 of CLRA) in s. 377C of the Penal Code. Certain sexual offences' penalties are also increased. However, the penalty for rape is never increased by CLRA, and the offences of incitement to violence or racial and religious hatred (ss. 267C and 298A) are introduced by the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2007 (ins. by s. 49 and 54 of Act 51 of 2007). Alternative sentencing was already introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, plus it's the Criminal Justice Reform Act 2018, not CLRA, that inserted provisions to supplement these sentencing options.

Q4: What constitutes a strict liability offence under Hong Kong law?

AI's answer:

Under Hong Kong law, a strict liability offense is an offense that does not require the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offense or was negligent in committing it. Instead, the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant committed the actus reus (the physical act) of the offense.

Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) defines a strict liability offense as "an offense which does not require proof of mens rea [the mental element of a crime] in relation to any one or more aspects of the actus reus of the offense."

Examples of strict liability offenses under Hong Kong law include traffic offenses, such as speeding or failing to wear a seatbelt, and certain environmental offenses, such as discharging pollutants into the water without a permit.

It is important to note that although strict liability offenses do not require proof of intent or negligence, the defendant can still raise a defense, such as claiming that they did not know or could not have known that they were committing an offense, or that they took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offense. However, the burden of proof for such defenses is on the defendant.

Endnote: The reference to Criminal Procedure Ordinance is 300% rubbish — please just check it on HKeL's website. Although a standalone definition exists in Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (Cap. 509). Water pollution is indeed a statutorily-created strict liability offence: see s. 10 of Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap 358), and some traffic regulatory offences also would, IMO, fulfill the requirements as laid down in Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong.

Surprisingly good answers

That said, throughout the quizzing process I've also encountered some surprisingly good answers from proprietary AIs. Here's a list:

Q1: Explain what constitutes hearsay evidence, as according to Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] WLR 965.

AI's answer:

In the case of Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] WLR 965, the Privy Council provided guidance on what constitutes hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence refers to statements made outside of the court proceedings that are presented in court to prove the truth of their contents. The general rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court, but there are certain exceptions.

In Subramaniam, the appellant was accused of possessing firearms and ammunition in violation of emergency regulations. He claimed that he had been forced to carry the arms by a group of terrorists who had threatened to kill him if he did not comply. The trial judge did not allow the appellant to give evidence of what the terrorists had said to him, ruling that it was hearsay evidence.

On appeal, the Privy Council held that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence. The court explained that hearsay evidence is a statement made by a person other than the witness who is testifying in court, and which is relied upon to prove the truth of the matter stated. However, the court emphasized that a statement may not be considered hearsay if it is being used to prove a fact other than the truth of the matter stated.

In the Subramaniam case, the appellant's evidence of what the terrorists had said to him was not offered to prove the truth of their statements, but rather to establish the fact that the threats had been made and that the appellant had acted under duress. Therefore, the evidence should not have been excluded as hearsay.

In conclusion, the Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] WLR 965 case provides guidance on the definition of hearsay evidence. According to the judgment, hearsay evidence is an out-of-court statement that is presented in court to prove the truth of its contents. However, if the statement is offered to prove a different fact, it may not be considered hearsay and may be admissible in court.

Endnote: The original judgment states the following:

Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made.

—L.M.D. de Silva

I would say the italicized part of the sentence is quite hard to understand at once, and the AI did a great job in explaining the part of "what's not hearsay evidence".

Stupid mistakes

Dee Estuary Conservancy Harbour Revision Order 2023 (S.I. 2023/470)

A seemingly normal and bland harbour revision order, except article 1(1) of the Order read as follows:

1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Dee Estuary Conservancy Harbour Revision Order 2023 and comes into force on [] 2023.

Endnote: Apparently someone copy pasted the pre-drafted version on the SI template and send it to the Stationary Office. Since been revoked and replaced by the Dee Estuary Conservancy Harbour Revision (No. 2) Order 2023 (S.I. 2023/690).

Law 14/92/M of 24th August (Macau)

According to Annex III of the Law, it states one catty equals to 0.60478982 grams... That's a thousand times smaller than the standard catty of about 605g. And surprisingly no one has found that problem for almost 30 years at all. Emailed to DSAJ for reply, and hopefully they'll fix that. Not sure if it's fixable by a retroactive law.