RE HEUNG CHEUK KEI
- Citation
- RE HEUNG CHEUK KEI
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 9 January 2007
- Posture
- Application for Relief Under Section 31 of the Elections (corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 / Judgment at First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP2660/2006
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 9 January 2007
- Posture
- Application for Relief Under Section 31 of the Elections (corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 / Judgment at First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP2660/2006
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The second element of section 26 — publication for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing an election — was not satisfied on the facts (no use to promote/prejudice, election uncontested, correction made before election); therefore no illegal conduct occurred and there was no basis to grant relief under section 31.
Court disposition
Originating summons dismissed; no relief granted.
Orders
- Originating summons dismissed; no relief granted.
02
Material facts
Parties
Applicant
Applicant Counsel: Mr Anthony Lo, Yeung Law & Co.Chief Electoral Officer
Respondent Counsel: Miss Tinny Lo, SGC, Department of JusticeAmounts and remedies
- Incorrect Age on Grid: 53
- Correct Age: 63
03
Procedural history
Posture
Application for Relief Under Section 31 of the Elections (corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 / Judgment at First Instance
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the publication of an incorrect age in the grid paper constituted illegal conduct under section 26 of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance
- 02
Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 31 to grant relief to the applicant
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant submitted a grid paper with an incorrect age (53 instead of 63) prepared by a clerk and signed it without noticing; he wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer on 2 December 2006 to correct the mistake and fears accusation under section 26, seeking relief under section 31.
- Respondent
- There is no suggestion the incorrect information was used to promote or prejudice the election; the election was uncontested and the applicant corrected the mistake before the election, so the purpose element of section 26 is not satisfied and no illegal conduct occurred.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 s26
Section 26 requires both (1) publication of a materially false or misleading statement of fact and (2) publication for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of a candidate
- 02
Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 s31
Court may grant relief to a candidate under section 31 where the candidate has done or omitted an act that would otherwise constitute illegal conduct
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The second element of section 26 — publication for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing an election — was not satisfied on the facts (no use to promote/prejudice, election uncontested, correction made before election); therefore no illegal conduct occurred and there was no basis to grant relief under section 31.
Obiter and limits
- Judge assumed for present purposes that the incorrect age could be treated as materially false or misleading but did not decide the point
- No suggestion that the grid paper information was used to influence the election
Court disposition
Originating summons dismissed; no relief granted.
- Originating summons dismissed; no relief granted.
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 9 January 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 9 January 2007
bjbj 06 Election Committee Subsector Election AND IN THE MATTER of Section 31 of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct), Cap. 554 ____ Before: Hon. Lam J in Court Date of Hearing: 9 January 2007 Date of Judgment: 9 January 2007 ____
J U D G M E N T ____ 1. This is an application for relief under Section 31 of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. Under that section the court may grant relief to a candidate who has done or omitted to do an act that but for the exercise of the power under this section would be an illegal conduct at an election.
2. The worry of the applicant is that in the grid paper submitted for the purpose of his elections, there is a mistake as to his age. Instead of 63, it was stated to be 53 and he failed to notice that when he signed that paper, which was prepared by a clerk in the Heung Yee Kuk. Therefore the applicant has a worry that he might be accused of committing an illegal conduct under Section 26 of the ordinance.
3. Section 26 or the ordinance says: That a person engages in illegal conduct at an election if the person publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about a particular candidate or particular candidates for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of the candidate or candidates.
4. Now, there are two elements in that section, both of which have to be satisfied before there is any illegal conduct. The first one is the publication of a materially false or misleading statement of fact. In this instance, the mistake about the age could be said to be a false statement, whether it is material or misleading I would not comment further but I would assume that it could be said to be materially false or misleading for present purposes.
5. However, there is a second element, namely, that the publication of such statement is for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of the candidate or candidates.
6. Now, the grid paper was submitted by the applicant and the election was, in fact, uncontested. Before the election date the applicant has already written to correct the mistake. By a letter dated 2 December 2006, the applicant wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer informing the latter about the mistake as to age. There is no suggestion that the information in the grid paper has been used for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election.
7. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the second element of section 26(1) can be fulfilled. In other words the applicant cannot be said to be guilty of any illegal conduct at the election.
8. Having come to this conclusion, there is no basis for this court to exercise any discretion to grant any relief. In the circumstances the originating summons is dismissed. In other words, there is no need for the applicant to seek any relief from this court. (M H Lam) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Anthony Lo, of Yeung Law & Co., for the Applicant Miss Tinny Lo, SGC of Department of Justic
PAGE -
PAGE CRT30/9.1.2007/DB HCMP2660/2006/Judgment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V &`#$ JUDGE.DOT setup Microsoft Word 9.0 judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.