THE QUEEN v. NG HO MING AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. NG HO MING AND ANOTHER

The court had jurisdiction because the magistrate effectively refused the review on 31 May triggering s.104(10) and the appeal was filed in time; on the facts proved (loading, tow to Ma Wan, transfer to speedboat near the PRC boundary, radar tracking, appellants' presence and admissions) the magistrate was entitled to infer a single overall agreement to export the television sets without a licence and therefore the convictions for conspiracy were upheld.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. NG HO MING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Crown/respondent: The Queen; Appellant/defendant: Ng Ho Ming; Appellant/defendant: Sin Yun Kun; Third Defendant (acquitted): Suen Hoi-sun
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 October 1991
Case Number
HCMA645/1991
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment (determination on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and magistrate's findings upheld
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Export Control, Appeal Jurisdiction, Abandonment of Appeal, Evidence and Inference
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Administrative/regulatory Law Procedural Law Maritime Law Conspiracy Export Control Appeal Jurisdiction Abandonment of Appeal +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Crown/respondent

Ng Ho Ming

Appellant/defendant

Sin Yun Kun

Appellant/defendant

Suen Hoi-sun

Third Defendant (acquitted)

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment (determination on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite an earlier notice of appeal being abandoned
  2. 2 Whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants were parties to a conspiracy to export television sets without a licence
  3. 3 Whether appellants had control or were party to an overall agreement with unknown persons who effected the export by speedboat

Ratio Decidendi

The court had jurisdiction because the magistrate effectively refused the review on 31 May triggering s.104(10) and the appeal was filed in time; on the facts proved (loading, tow to Ma Wan, transfer to speedboat near the PRC boundary, radar tracking, appellants' presence and admissions) the magistrate was entitled to infer a single overall agreement to export the television sets without a licence and therefore the convictions for conspiracy were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and magistrate's findings upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions affirmed