In HKSAR v Chiu [2023] HKDC 1760, the parameters of “practicing medicine” (內科執業) under section 28(2)(a) of the Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap. 161) (the “Ordinance”) in treatment services provided in Hong Kong was first defined by the criminal courts in Hong Kong.

The definition of “medicine” was one of the main contentious issues as the word “medicine” is not defined under the Ordinance. Citing Kwong Wing Kie v Licentiate Committee of the Medical Council of Hong Kong & Anor (unreported., CACV 206/2014, 4 November 2015) in which the Court of Appeal held that the terms “medicine” (內科) and “surgery” (外科) are terms used in Western medicine, in view of the overall purpose of the entire registration scheme in Part III and the penal consequences imposed by section 28 of the Ordinance, the legislative intent is to ensure that only properly qualified and registered medical practitioners holding a practising certificate can practise “medicine”. By this statutory construction, the provisions under the Ordinance only apply to Western medicine and not to Chinese medicine, the learned Deputy District Judge considered that the same principles apply (§§52-57).

Henceforth the Prosecution’s broad construction that the word “medicine”, i.e. (1) Other than Chinese medicine and the 7 exempted categories under section 28(3) of the Ordinance, any kind of medical diagnosis and treatment must fall under the category of “Western Medicine”; (2) Section 28(2)(a) applies to “Western Medicine”, which equates to “non-Chinese Medicine” (非中醫), must be rejected. The learned Deputy Judge found that as the evidence revealed that the treatment services prosecuted for were not “Western Medicine” (known as Naturopathic Medicine (自然療法)), the Defendant’s practice was therefore not regulated under section 28(2)(a) of the Ordinance (§71).