13 Dec 1995
Appeal allowed because there was no evidence that the officer had the written authorisation required by s.86 PHMSO Cap.132; absence of such proof meant the officer was not shown to be acting in execution of his duty and the convictions for obstruction and related criminal intimidation could not stand.
31 Jan 1989
For hawking obstruction offences in this jurisdiction first offenders should not normally be fined above HKD 600; repeat offenders may be fined up to HKD 1,000 (or higher for persistent recidivists); magistrates may give credit for frankness about past offending (example reductions to HKD 800); charging should follow the Hawker By-laws for consistency rather than use the Summary Offences Ordinance solely to obtain higher maximum penalties.
31 Jan 1989
Court establishes and applies a sentencing policy: first offenders for hawking obstruction in Tsimshatsui should normally be fined $600; repeat offenders may be fined $1,000 or more; magistrates may give credit for appellant honesty (typical reduction to $800) and should charge under appropriate Hawker By‑laws rather than defaulting to Summary Offences Ordinance for higher penalties.
31 Jan 1989
The court applied a consistent sentencing policy: reduce fines for first offenders to $600 (or to $800 where credit for frank revelation of prior offences was given), uphold higher fines for repeat offenders up to $1,000 (and allow higher penalties for persistent recalcitrance), and require consistent charging under the appropriate hawker by‑laws rather than using summary offence provisions solely to obtain higher penalties.
8 Apr 1983
Where an offence is designated for mandatory forfeiture by section 86A(1)(a) and regulations, a court nonetheless may order forfeiture only if it is satisfied that the goods were seized under section 86(1) and that the informant informed the court of the seizure; absent clear compliance with these statutory prerequisites a forfeiture order is unlawful and must be quashed.
12 Jan 1983
Forfeiture order was quashed because section 86A(1) makes informing the court of the seizure a precondition to forfeiture and, where the offence falls within section 86A(1)(a) (as here), the court has no discretion to refrain from ordering forfeiture; the magistrate had not been informed and therefore the forfeiture was invalid.
19 Jun 1975
Where both equipment and commodity were seized under s.86(1) and the accused is convicted of a designated hawker offence, s.86A(1)'s mandatory provision requires forfeiture of all property seized; the court has no discretion to forfeit only part of the seized items in those circumstances, and the magistrate must order forfeiture of both equipment and commodity.