Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hawking offences

  • 17 May 1996

    R. v. CHAN CHI HUNG

    Citation
    R. v. CHAN CHI HUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA391/1996

    The magistrate was entitled to accept the sergeant's evidence and to convict the appellant of hawking and causing an obstruction; however s.86(1) confers a discretionary power to seize equipment and in the circumstances the forfeiture of the van was disproportionate and unsupported by evidence that the van was used in the hawking, therefore the forfeiture order must be quashed and the van returned to its owner.

  • 16 Apr 1993

    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG LAM TUNG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG LAM TUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA147/1993

    The vehicle depicted in the admitted photographs was a lorry, not a van; because a lorry does not fall within the statutory definition of "stall" and therefore not within "equipment" under s83, mandatory forfeiture under s86A did not apply. The conviction on charge B and the forfeiture order were therefore set aside and the vehicle returned to its owner.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA53/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui area, first offenders should generally be fined no more than HKD 600; subsequent offences may attract fines up to HKD 1,000 or higher for persistent recidivists; magistrates should apply this tariff consistently and may give mitigation (to HKD 800) where the offender voluntarily discloses prior offences; charging should normally be under the Hawker By-laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance to avoid inconsistent application of penalties.

  • 16 Dec 1988

    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK-KUI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK-KUI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1541/1988

    Because there was no evidence on the seriousness or extent of obstruction and there was authority treating first offenders leniently in identical circumstances, the fines of $1,000 were excessive and should be reduced to $600 for the majority; a minor elderly hawker with two cartons of pears had her fine reduced to $200.

  • 16 Dec 1988

    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1539/1988

    In the absence of any evidence or record demonstrating the seriousness or extent of the obstruction and in light of prior appellate decisions treating similarly situated licensed hawkers as first offenders, the $1,000 fines were excessive and should be reduced (generally to $600); a single elderly appellant who was not hawking but had two cartons of pears warranted a further reduced fine of $200.

  • 16 Dec 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1537/1988

    Because there was no record of prior hawking offences and no evidence was produced to establish the extent or seriousness of obstruction, the £1,000 fines were excessive for first offenders; following O'Connor J and Bewley J the appropriate reduction is to $600 in the typical cases and a greater reduction to $200 is warranted in a case of minimal conduct and advanced age.

  • 20 Dec 1983

    THE QUEEN v. AU YEUNG KAI-WAH

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. AU YEUNG KAI-WAH
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1471/1983

    The court held that (A) the informant is not required to produce the document informing the court under s.86A(1) on oath; (B) a police officer need not be authorised in writing to seize under s.86(1); (C) if 'officer' means police officer no written authority is needed, if it means public officer a written authority from the Authority is required; and (D) informing the court may be verbal or by written document (including an annexure) containing particulars showing compliance with s.86(1); if challenged the Magistrate must inquire and may hear sworn evidence.

  • 9 Dec 1977

    LAM CHAU-KWAI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    LAM CHAU-KWAI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1237/1977

    The appellate court reduced the fines imposed by the magistrate as excessive in the circumstances and set aside the order of forfeiture insofar as cash and certain valuable items (notably two refrigerators) were concerned because the magistrates' record and factual basis were insufficient to support forfeiture; accordingly fines were reduced to specified amounts, balances paid were ordered returned, and the two refrigerators (Item No.22) were ordered returned.

  • 27 Nov 1972

    POON WAN WAH v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    POON WAN WAH v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC713/1972

    The magistrate's sentence of a $400 fine was proper and should be upheld because the appellant deliberately breached the law by resuming hawking in a cleared area; procedural lapses concerning photographic exhibits were noted and the court emphasised correct exhibit procedure; the court indicated it would permit payment by instalments ($100 per month with credit for five days served) but the appellant refused the proposal, and consequently the appeal is dismissed.