LAM KIN YIU AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

LAM KIN YIU AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Where evidence is consistent with either engaging in bookmaking (s7(1)(a)) or assisting bookmaking (s7(1)(c)) and it is not possible to determine which offence was committed, a conviction under s7(1)(a) is unsafe because the s19(3) presumption does not assist s7(1)(a); presence alone is insufficient to convict; however, evidence permitting inference of knowledge can sustain a conviction for suffering premises to be used as a gambling establishment (s15(1)(a)).

Citation
LAM KIN YIU AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Parties
1st Appellant: Lam Kin Yiu; 2nd Appellant: Hung Hon Man; 3rd Appellant: Ng Wai Kee; Respondent: The Queen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 April 1985
Case Number
HCMA175/1985
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal to High Court (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Bookmaking, Assisting Bookmaking, Presumptions of Law, Burden of Proof, Circumstantial Evidence, Expert Evidence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Regulatory Offences Gambling Law Evidence Law Bookmaking Assisting Bookmaking Presumptions of Law Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Kin Yiu

1st Appellant

Hung Hon Man

2nd Appellant

Ng Wai Kee

3rd Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal to High Court (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions under Section 7(1)(a) were proved beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether mere presence at premises used for bookmaking suffices for conviction under s7(1)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the presumption in s19(3) applies to proceedings under s7(1)(a) or only to s7(1)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

Where evidence is consistent with either engaging in bookmaking (s7(1)(a)) or assisting bookmaking (s7(1)(c)) and it is not possible to determine which offence was committed, a conviction under s7(1)(a) is unsafe because the s19(3) presumption does not assist s7(1)(a); presence alone is insufficient to convict; however, evidence permitting inference of knowledge can sustain a conviction for suffering premises to be used as a gambling establishment (s15(1)(a)).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Allow appeals of 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants against convictions under Section 7(1)(a) of the Gambling Ordinance; quash those convictions.
  • Dismiss appeal of 1st appellant against conviction under Section 15(1)(a); conviction on that charge affirmed.