Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hawking

  • 30 Sept 1993

    THE QUEEN v. HUI SIU SUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HUI SIU SUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA337/1993

    The court held that s3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance does not exclude privately owned thoroughfares from being 'streets', s83B does not require a different definition, a privately owned arcade deliberately provided and freely used by the public qualifies as both a 'street' and a 'public place' for s83B, and the magistrate erred in dismissing the information on the basis of private ownership alone.

  • 16 Dec 1988

    THE QUEEN v. MOK YEE-HOR

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. MOK YEE-HOR
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1544/1988

    Because there was no evidence before the magistrate establishing the extent or seriousness of obstruction and no record of prior offences, the appellants must be treated as first offenders; therefore the fines of $1,000 were excessive and should be reduced to $600 except in a case of minimal conduct by an elderly appellant where it should be reduced to $200.

  • 16 Dec 1988

    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1545/1988

    In the absence of any record or evidence demonstrating the extent or seriousness of obstruction and in light of prior appellate decisions treating unrecorded hawking offences as first offences, the fines of $1,000 imposed by the magistrate were excessive; appeals are allowed in part and fines are reduced to reflect first-offender status and proportionality.

  • 16 Dec 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1543/1988

    Because there was no evidence or record establishing seriousness or prior offending, these appellants must be treated as first offenders and the uniform $1,000 fines imposed by the magistrate were excessive; accordingly fines should be reduced to $600 except for the elderly appellant with minimal conduct whose fine should be reduced to $200.

  • 16 Dec 1988

    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM-LAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM-LAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1540/1988

    In the absence of any record of prior offences and any evidence as to the extent or seriousness of the obstruction, appellants must be treated as first offenders and a fine of $1,000 was excessive; accordingly fines are reduced to $600 except in one compassionate case reduced to $200, following precedent reducing first-offender fines in identical appeals.

  • 16 Dec 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHIH

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHIH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1542/1988

    Because there was no evidence as to the extent or seriousness of the obstruction and no record of prior convictions, the appellants must be treated as first offenders; a $1,000 fine was excessive in these circumstances and should be reduced (generally to $600, with an exception reduced to $200 for the elderly vendor with minimal goods).

  • 10 Nov 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHENG FOON

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHENG FOON
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1158/1988

    The appeal is allowed and the $1,000 fines are reduced to $600 because $1,000 was held to be excessive for presumed first offenders and the statutory maximum should not be routinely imposed.

  • 17 Dec 1987

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KWOK KAN HSING

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KWOK KAN HSING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA882/1987

    Photographic evidence showing display of flowers in a public place together with the single sale demonstrated trading within the statutory definition of 'hawker'; the magistrate erred in law in dismissing the charge for lack of intent to trade.