HKSAR v. HO SIN YEE AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. HO SIN YEE AND ANOTHER

The Court upheld the Magistrate's findings that the appellants were not the operators carrying on the licensed food business, that their representations and resultant guilty pleas were false and knowingly made to shield the true operator, and that those acts and pleas both tended and were intended to pervert the course of public justice; accordingly the convictions were safe and the appeals were dismissed.

Citation
HKSAR v. HO SIN YEE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: HO SIN YEE; 2nd Appellant: CHENG SHUK KAM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 January 2015
Case Number
HCMA125/2014
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Court of First Instance Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Public Justice, False Representation, Food Business Regulation, Guilty Pleas, Admissions in Interview
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Regulatory Offences Public Health Law Evidence Law Perverting the Course of Public Justice False Representation Food Business Regulation Guilty Pleas +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

HO SIN YEE

1st Appellant

CHENG SHUK KAM

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Court of First Instance Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'business operator' is distinct from 'operator' for the purposes of the representations made to FEHD inspectors
  2. 2 Whether each appellant was in fact the operator or carrying on the food business at the Site
  3. 3 Whether the guilty pleas were genuine or were false admissions intended to shield the true operator

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the Magistrate's findings that the appellants were not the operators carrying on the licensed food business, that their representations and resultant guilty pleas were false and knowingly made to shield the true operator, and that those acts and pleas both tended and were intended to pervert the course of public justice; accordingly the convictions were safe and the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Convictions and sentences affirmed