HKSAR v. CHAU CHEUK YIN

HKSAR v. CHAU CHEUK YIN

The Magistrate, as primary fact-finder, accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the Appellant's; on findings that the Appellant followed the complainant, positioned himself behind her and held a camera-phone under her skirt for an appreciable time, his presence constituted loitering with a non-innocent purpose and caused reasonable concern, therefore the conviction under s.160(3) was legally sustainable and the appeal on conviction fails.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHAU CHEUK YIN
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: Chau Cheuk Yin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 November 2003
Case Number
HCMA641/2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal From KCCC 7489 of 2003
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Loitering Causing Concern, Upskirting, Credibility of Witnesses, Procedural Fairness in Cross Examination, Sentence Upheld
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Public Order Evidence Loitering Causing Concern Upskirting Credibility of Witnesses Procedural Fairness in Cross Examination Sentence Upheld

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Chau Cheuk Yin

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal From KCCC 7489 of 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the element of loitering (lingering/idling with non-innocent purpose) was proven
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate erred in law in convicting the Appellant given the factual findings
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate denied a fair opportunity for effective cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate, as primary fact-finder, accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the Appellant's; on findings that the Appellant followed the complainant, positioned himself behind her and held a camera-phone under her skirt for an appreciable time, his presence constituted loitering with a non-innocent purpose and caused reasonable concern, therefore the conviction under s.160(3) was legally sustainable and the appeal on conviction fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under s.160(3) Crimes Ordinance upheld