Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hawking obstruction

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA39/1989

    Court set and applied a sentencing policy: first offenders should not be fined above $600 absent special reasons; repeat offenders may be fined up to $1,000 or higher for persistent recalcitrance; magistrates may give modest credit for voluntary disclosure of prior offending; consistent charging under Hawker By‑laws is preferable to invoking the Summary Offences Ordinance for identical conduct.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA32/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Golden Mile the appellate court adopts a consistent sentencing policy: first offenders should normally be fined no more than HK$600; subsequent offences may attract fines up to HK$1,000 or higher for persistent recalcitrance; magistrates retain discretion and may give credit (eg reduction to HK$800) for voluntary disclosure of previous offences; charging should be consistent with the applicable hawker by‑laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance to avoid arbitrary elevation of penalties.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA54/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui "Golden Mile" a consistent sentencing approach is required: first offenders should generally be fined no more than $600, repeat offenders may be fined up to $1,000 (and higher for persistent recidivists), with allowance for mitigation such as honest disclosure; charging should be consistently under the Hawkers By-laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance to avoid artificially higher penalties.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. AU WAI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. AU WAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA35/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui 'Golden Mile' area a policy of deterrence is permissible, but as a matter of appellate principle first offenders should not be fined more than $600; voluntary disclosure of prior offences can attract a lesser reduction to $800; repeat offenders may lawfully attract fines of $1,000 or higher depending on recalcitrance; charging should be consistent and not use higher‑penalty statutes merely to increase fines.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA30/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Golden Mile area a sentencing convention is established: first offenders should not be fined more than $600 absent special circumstances; voluntary admission of prior offending justifies intermediate reduction (to $800 in these cases); repeat offenders may be fined up to $1,000 and higher if persistently recalcitrant; charges should be brought consistently under the appropriate Hawker By‑laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance to avoid inconsistent inflations of penalty.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. HUI CHUN CHEUNG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HUI CHUN CHEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA38/1989

    Appellate court adopts a consistent sentencing policy: reduce fines for first offenders to $600, allow higher fines (up to $1,000 or more) for repeat or recalcitrant offenders, permit modest reductions for appellants who candidly disclosed prior offences, and discourage charging under the Summary Offences Ordinance solely to obtain higher penalties; apply that policy to dismiss or allow specific appeals accordingly.

  • 13 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1706/1988

    For hawking obstruction by first offenders a fine of $600 is appropriate for consistency with prior appellate decisions; repeat offending committed shortly after conviction justifies upholding the higher fine; where obstruction is minimal (eg cul-de-sac) a lower fine (here $400) is appropriate.

  • 13 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1705/1988

    For hawking obstruction offences by first offenders a $1,000 fine is excessive; a fine of $600 is appropriate for first-time offenders as a matter of consistent sentencing; however, where offences are committed again shortly after conviction the higher fine should be maintained; minimal obstruction (cul-de-sac) justifies a further reduced fine of $400.

  • 13 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1715/1988

    The appropriate fine for a first offender convicted of hawking obstruction in these circumstances is $600; where the offence amounts to minimal obstruction (cul-de-sac) a reduced fine of $400 is appropriate; repeat offences committed shortly after conviction do not warrant reduction and appeals in those cases are dismissed.

  • 13 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA15/1989

    For first-time offenders convicted of hawking obstruction in Tsim Sha Tsui, a fine of $600 is an appropriate sentence; where the offence involves minimal obstruction (cul-de-sac) a lower fine of $400 is appropriate; repeat offending shortly after conviction justifies maintaining the higher $1,000 fine and dismissal of appeals against that amount.