| 单词 | Mistake of fact |
| 释义 | 事實錯誤 An honest belief regarding a particular fact which is not correct. Mistake of fact may in some circumstances be raised by the defence to negative the prosecution’s case that the accused possessed the requisite mental element for an offence: Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132, [1969] 1 All ER 347 (HL); Beckford v R [1988] AC 130, [1987] 3 All ER 425 (PC). It is a defence to the offence of non-consensual sexual intercourse that the accused made a mistake as to the consent of the victim: DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182, [1975] 2 All ER 347, 61 Cr App Rep 136 (HL); R v Cheung Kin Shing [1995] 2 HKC 210. However, it is not necessary for the trial judge to raise the issue in every case, especially if there is little, if any, basis for the issue arising on the facts: HKSAR v Tsang Sai Kit [1997] 3 HKC 790 (CA). In strict liability offences a defendant may escape liability on the ground of an honest and reasonable mistake of fact: HKSAR v Paul Y-ITC Construction Ltd [1998] 3 HKC 189; HKSAR v Leighton Contractor (Asia) Ltd [2000] 1 HKLRD 787; HKSAR v Hip Hing Construction Co Ltd (No 1) [2001] 3 HKC 619. The mistake of fact defence may be successful if the person charged honestly believed however unreasonable his belief is: B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] 1 All ER 833. However, the reasonableness or otherwise of the belief is a relevant factor that the jury may take into account in determining whether the accused in fact believed that the victim was consenting: Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) s 118(4). See also Mistake; Mistake of law. Restitution - A mistaken belief in the existence of facts which causes a person to pay money to or confer a benefit on another. Money paid under a mistake of fact was prima facie recoverable provided that the payer did not intend the payee to have the money in any event, the money was not paid for good consideration, and the payee had not in good faith changed his position: Barclays Bank v Simms [1980] QB 677; Desert Palace Inc (t/a Caesars Palace) v Yip Hon Fat Jimson (HCA 2335/92, unreported). The Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) applies to an action at common law to recover money paid under a mistake of fact or to an analogous claim in equity, for money paid under a mistake of fact or law: Ministry of Health v Simpson [1950] 2 All ER 1137, [1951] AC 251(HL). See also Mistake; Mistake of law. 某特定事實不正確有關的真誠信念。在某些情況下，辯方可提出事實錯誤，以被告擁有必須的精神元素為理由否定控方的案件：Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132, [1969] 1 All ER 347 （上議院）；Beckford v R [1988] AC 130, [1987] 3 All ER 425 （樞密院）。就未經同意下進行的性行為罪行，被告如對受害者的同意作出錯誤的理解，即屬抗辯理由：DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182, [1975] 2 All ER 347, 61 Cr App Rep 136 （上議院）；R v Cheung Kin Shing [1995] 2 HKC 210。但是，主審法官未必需要在每個案件中提出該爭論點，如有任何爭論點，尤其就因是事實所提出的爭論點只有很少的根據：HKSAR v Tsang Sai Kit [1997] 3 HKC 790 （上訴法院）。就嚴格法律責任而言，被告人可因真誠而合理的事實錯誤而逃避法律責任：HKSAR v Paul Y-ITC Construction Ltd [1998] 3 HKC 189; HKSAR v Leighton Contractor (Asia) Ltd [2000] 1 HKLRD 787; HKSAR v Hip Hing Construction Co Ltd (No 1) [2001] 3 HKC 619。事實錯誤的抗辯理由或可成功，如被控告的人真誠地相信其信念，但該信念是不合理的：B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] 1 All ER 833。但是，信念的合理性或其他方面屬與案件有關的因素，陪審團須考慮並顧及被告事實上是否相信已得到受害者的同意：《刑事罪行條例》 （200章）第118條 (4)。另見 Mistake; Mistake of law. 復原 - 對已存在的事實有誤認的信念，導致某人向另一人繳付款項或給予福利。因事實錯誤而繳付的款項表面上看來是可追討的，只要付款人沒有打算讓受款人在任何事件中擁有該筆款項，該筆款項並非以良好代價繳付，而受款人不是真誠地改變其位置：Barclays Bank v Simms [1980] QB 677；Desert Palace Inc (t/a Caesars Palace) v Yip Hon Fat Jimson（高院民事訴訟1992年第2335號，未經彙報）。《時效條例》（第347章）適用於在普通法上因事實錯誤追討款項的訴訟或在衡平法上對相似的申索追討因事實或法律錯誤的款項：Ministry of Health v Simpson [1950] 2 All ER 1137, [1951] AC 251（上議院）。另見 Mistake; Mistake of law。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。