Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

RE HEUNG CHEUK KEI

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Justice

Amounts and remedies

  • Incorrect Age on Grid: 53
  • Correct Age: 63

03

Procedural history

  1. 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

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

  1. 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

  2. 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.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 9 January 2007

RE HEUNG CHEUK KEI

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 s26

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 s31

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.