Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hawking without licence

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD, ASLAM

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2317
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA432/2025

The 81 days' detention was administrative immigration detention arising from separate immigration proceedings and lacked the necessary connection and proximity to the present offence; therefore it is not deductible under section 67A(1A) CPO and there are no exceptional circumstances to exercise judicial discretion to give credit; the magistrate's sentence of 15 months was a correct application of precedent and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
12 Jun 2001

HKSAR v. WONG AIDA ALCAIDE

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG AIDA ALCAIDE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA230/2001

Magistrate's affirmative credibility finding for the Assistant Hawker Control Officer, supported by direct evidence of an exchange for money, possession of bags causing obstruction, and appellant's attempted concealment of money, meant there was ample and properly admitted evidence to justify convictions for obstruction under s4A Cap.228 and hawking without a licence under s83B Cap.132; appellate court will not overturn such credibility-based findings absent clear error.
11 Dec 2000

HKSAR v. KAU HIU MUI

Citation

HKSAR v. KAU HIU MUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1149/2000

The magistrate\u2019s two months immediate custodial sentence for breach of condition of stay was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, including undisclosed mitigation and comparative statistics; the appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced to 12 days imprisonment to effect immediate release.
15 Feb 1996

THE QUEEN v. TSANG LING HO and Another

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSANG LING HO and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA24/1996

Convictions were upheld because the evidence was overwhelming; however, confiscation of the appellants' private car was disproportionate and therefore set aside, with confiscation of the goods and the fines otherwise maintained.
12 Apr 1983

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG SING-KUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG SING-KUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC358/1983

Because Section 86A(1) is punitive and mandatory, the court may only order forfeiture if the informant has informed the court of the seizure under Section 86(1); the informant failed to do so here, therefore the forfeiture order was invalid and must be set aside.
28 Dec 1982

CHENG PING-KUEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHENG PING-KUEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1149/1982

Appeal allowed in part: the suspended one‑month imprisonment was manifestly excessive and was set aside because the learned Magistrate's sentencing was in part based on erroneous information about prior convictions; the court declined to endorse an increase of the fine beyond the appellant's previously highest fine and adjusted the sentence accordingly.
4 Sept 1978

KWOK CHUNG-LAP v. THE QUEEN

Citation

KWOK CHUNG-LAP v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC743/1978

Conviction was void because required facts were not put to the accused before accepting a guilty plea in a rushed magistrates' court; therefore conviction and sentence were quashed and a trial de novo ordered, with forfeiture set aside and goods returned.
29 Mar 1978

CHU HON AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHU HON AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC119/1978

Appeal allowed and sentences varied because the magistrate failed to comply with required record‑keeping and plea procedures, did not properly ascertain means, and relied on extraneous material not before the court, resulting in fines manifestly excessive and out of line with ordinary tariffs; consequent orders and confiscation set aside.
28 Feb 1975

FUNG HOI YIP v. THE QUEEN

Citation

FUNG HOI YIP v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC51/1975

Because evidence before the court raised a real possibility that the appellant had entered the wrong plea through misunderstanding, the appeal was allowed in part and the appropriate remedy to prevent injustice was to return the papers to the magistracy for a trial de novo.