HKSAR v. CHING LONG TIN

HKSAR v. CHING LONG TIN

Magistrate's acceptance of PW1's credible evidence together with the uncontradicted chronology and security evidence permitted the only reasonable inference that the appellant was the person who stood on the toilet to look over the partition and that his conduct (tarrying/peering) showed intent or caused reasonable concern; the cautioned statement warranted little weight; accordingly the conviction was upheld.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHING LONG TIN
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: CHING LONG TIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 February 2003
Case Number
HCMA858/2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Against Conviction to Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed.
Legal Topics
Loitering to Cause Reasonable Concern, Section 160(3) Crimes Ordinance, Credibility of Witness, Circumstantial Evidence, Intent, Cautioned Statement Weight, Inference of Identity
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Appeals Loitering to Cause Reasonable Concern Section 160(3) Crimes Ordinance Credibility of Witness Circumstantial Evidence Intent +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

CHING LONG TIN

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Against Conviction to Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PW1 was a credible witness whose evidence could support conviction
  2. 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence justified inferring the appellant was the person seen peering over the partition
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to cause reasonable concern or to loiter for that purpose

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrate's acceptance of PW1's credible evidence together with the uncontradicted chronology and security evidence permitted the only reasonable inference that the appellant was the person who stood on the toilet to look over the partition and that his conduct (tarrying/peering) showed intent or caused reasonable concern; the cautioned statement warranted little weight; accordingly the conviction was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed and conviction upheld