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
 * Another AI's answer:
 * Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 is a landmark case
 * Another AI's answer:
 * Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 is a landmark case
 * Another AI's answer:
 * Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 is a landmark case
 * Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 is a landmark case

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. 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:
 * Promulgation of Administrative Regulations:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 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

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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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, including crimes against individuals, property, and the public order.
 * The Judiciary Police has the power to investigate and 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

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:

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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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, according to the Macau Penal Code. 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:
 * 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.
 * Detain individuals: The authorities had the power to detain individuals without trial, and to impose house arrest or other forms of confinement.
 * 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.
 * Detain individuals: The authorities had the power to detain individuals without trial, and to impose house arrest or other forms of confinement.
 * 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.

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:
 * 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.
 * , 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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.

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.

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 specifies that the following Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom apply to Singapore:
 * The Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that are specified in.
 * currently specifies a list of 11 Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, including, , and.
 * currently specifies a list of 11 Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, including, , and.

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:
 * Some examples of Malaysian legislation that were extended to Singapore include:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 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:
 * 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.
 * 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.

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, 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:
 * 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.
 * The UAV must not be flown higher than 30 meters above ground level,
 * 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.
 * The remote pilot must not operate the UAV in a manner that could endanger any person, property or other aircraft.
 * The UAV must not be flown at night or in adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain, fog or strong winds.
 * The remote pilot must have obtained relevant training and certification from a recognized provider.
 * 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:
 * The court held that the Town Planning Board had the power to impose a height restriction on the proposed development project,
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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:
 * Introducing a new offence of voyeurism, which criminalizes the act of recording or capturing images of a person's private parts without their consent.
 * Expanding the definition of sexual penetration to include any form of penetration with an object, not just genitalia.
 * Increasing penalties for certain sexual offences, including and sexual assault.
 * Criminalizing the act of sending threatening or harassing messages online, known as "cyberbullying."
 * Overall, the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 aimed to strengthen Singapore's criminal justice system and better protect its citizens from harm.
 * Overall, the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 aimed to strengthen Singapore's criminal justice system and better protect its citizens from harm.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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."

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".

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.