THE QUEEN v. LAU SHUN DICK AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. LAU SHUN DICK AND OTHERS

The Crown's decision to proceed despite a prior letter advising no evidence did not constitute an abuse of process; the magistrate correctly convicted the 1st appellant on the evidence that she was in control at the time of the raid; conversely, the acts of the 2nd and 3rd appellants (advising customers of sexual services and stating a fixed price but not receiving or retaining payments or exercising control) did not demonstrate the requisite degree of control or financial involvement to constitute assisting in management and their convictions were therefore unsafe and quashed.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. LAU SHUN DICK AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; 1st Appellant: LAU SHUN DICK; 2nd Appellant: NG SUET YING; 3rd Appellant: WONG YIU FAI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 1991
Case Number
HCMA1419/1989
Procedural Posture
Criminal Magistracy Appeal / Appeal Judgment (supreme Court, Appellate Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Appeal of 1st appellant dismissed; appeals of 2nd and 3rd appellants allowed; convictions of 2nd and 3rd quashed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Rescission of Nolle Prosequi/no Evidence, Assisting in Management of a Vice Establishment, Credibility Assessment, Admission and Cautioned Statements, Magistrates' Conduct and Record
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Procedural Law Evidence Law Sexual Offences Law Abuse of Process Rescission of Nolle Prosequi/no Evidence Assisting in Management of a Vice Establishment Credibility Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

LAU SHUN DICK

1st Appellant

NG SUET YING

2nd Appellant

WONG YIU FAI

3rd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Magistracy Appeal / Appeal Judgment (supreme Court, Appellate Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown's prior advice/letter that no evidence would be offered and subsequent decision to proceed constituted an abuse of process or caused unfairness
  2. 2 Whether any secret communication between prosecution and magistrate occurred and whether it tainted trial fairness
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's acceptance of a verbal admission but rejection of the cautioned statement was inconsistent and unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown's decision to proceed despite a prior letter advising no evidence did not constitute an abuse of process; the magistrate correctly convicted the 1st appellant on the evidence that she was in control at the time of the raid; conversely, the acts of the 2nd and 3rd appellants (advising customers of sexual services and stating a fixed price but not receiving or retaining payments or exercising control) did not demonstrate the requisite degree of control or financial involvement to constitute assisting in management and their convictions were therefore unsafe and quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal of 1st appellant dismissed; appeals of 2nd and 3rd appellants allowed; convictions of 2nd and 3rd quashed.

Orders

  • Dismiss appeal of 1st appellant and affirm conviction.
  • Allow appeals of 2nd and 3rd appellants and quash their convictions.