Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Gambling establishment

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. CHIU HOI PO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIU HOI PO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA457/2012

The presumption under section 19 was properly engaged and was not rebutted on the evidence; the magistrate did not err in law on burden of proof; the CCTV footage together with possession of a key, involvement in the tenancy and committee status permitted the irresistible inference that the appellant operated the premises as a gambling establishment; the conviction and the sentence of three months' imprisonment are upheld.
1 Oct 1996

R. v. CHEUNG WAI HING and Others

Citation

R. v. CHEUNG WAI HING and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA750/1995

The Magistrate correctly found, on the evidence of membership fees, room rent and open provision of mahjong facilities, that the premises operated as a commercial gambling establishment and were not private; therefore the social occasion defence under s.3(2) did not apply, the meal constituted 'winnings' under the definitions, section 6 was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as held in authority, and the convictions were properly sustained.
8 Sept 1989

THE QUEEN v. KWOK CHOR-CHE AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KWOK CHOR-CHE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA712/1989

The magistrate was entitled to find the premises were a gambling establishment with gambling equipment and that the cash and tin box supported the inference of gaming conducted for gain under Cap.148; he adequately discharged his duty to unrepresented appellants and his adverse credibility findings and inferences were open to him, so the convictions were properly upheld.
26 Oct 1988

THE QUEEN v. LAU KWOK WOO ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU KWOK WOO ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA833/1988

The appellate court held the magistrate's credibility findings were supported by evidence (chips, payments, many players and rooms, membership procedures); the premises were society premises not private for s.3, the provision of tiles/charge constituted conduct by way of business, appellants knew of the gambling, and therefore convictions were lawful and appeals were dismissed.
21 Apr 1988

THE QUEEN v. KWONG YIU HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KWONG YIU HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1048/1987

Section 3(2) creates a defence that can rebut the presumptions in s.19; once s.19 presumptions arise the evidential/burden onus shifts to defendants to prove lawfulness on a more likely than not basis, and applying that legal framework to the facts the Court found the gambling was a social occasion so the convictions could not stand.
24 Sept 1987

THE QUEEN v. FONG CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. FONG CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA605/1987

Once it is proved that a person gambled in a gambling establishment (including by the statutory presumptions in s19 arising from authorised police entry), the offence under section 6 is made out because a 'gambling establishment' by definition involves unlawful gambling; the prosecution need not separately prove that the gambling was unlawful and section 18 does not apply to section 6.
7 Nov 1986

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KAM KIM CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KAM KIM CHUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1041/1986

The magistrate erred in finding the s.3(4)(d) saving applied; the observed charges (e.g. $16/hour and $62.20 for two hours) and the commercial arrangements for mahjong on the premises demonstrate gaming was promoted or conducted by way of trade or business and exceeded the regulatory tile-hire limit, so the defence under s.3(4)(d) failed and the respondents must be convicted; the case is remitted to the magistrate with a direction to convict.
26 Sept 1983

THE QUEEN v. POON SZE-TAK AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. POON SZE-TAK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1012/1983

The magistrate erred in applying Section 19 presumptions to infer individual guilt for bookmaking under s7(1)(a); s19 can establish that premises are a gambling establishment but does not create a presumption that each person present was bookmaking, and therefore convictions of defendants who were only shown to be present could not stand without individual proof of bookmaking.
14 Oct 1977

LEUNG SHUI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEUNG SHUI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC927/1977

The mahjong and sap ng wu games were games played for winnings, the guests occupied hotel rooms which are 'private premises' entered by permission but the regular hiring of tiles and provision of staff constituted promotion of gaming by way of trade or business under the Ordinance; therefore the premises were a gambling establishment and the appellants convicted of assisting in its operation were properly convicted.