Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Obstruction

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. WISDOM KINGDOM LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. WISDOM KINGDOM LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA131/2014

On the proven facts (vehicle stationary in the left lane at the white line, traffic lights changed twice, driver inattentive, other vehicles impeded or deprived of choice of lane during business hours in Central) the vehicle's presence was likely to cause an unnecessary obstruction and not de minimis, so conviction under s4 is safe; however the additional penalty under s20(3) was quashed because the Magistrate did not in fact make a finding that the defence was frivolous or vexatious as required for mandatory imposition of the additional penalty.
10 Jun 2008

CITYABILITY LTD v. TREASURE SPOT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CITYABILITY LTD v. TREASURE SPOT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2574/2007

There was a serious question to be tried on whether the jeep substantially interfered with the right of way; on the balance of convenience the status quo should be preserved pending trial, leave to amend to seek a prohibitory injunction was granted, and the ex parte order was not vitiated by material non-disclosure.
29 Nov 2007

HKSAR v. PHAM VAN HUY

Citation

HKSAR v. PHAM VAN HUY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1007/2007

The court held the 12 month sentence on Charge 1 was not manifestly excessive given the appellant's prior convictions, and that imposing the 2 month sentence on Charge 4 consecutively would be excessive; therefore the sentence on Charge 4 must run concurrently with Charge 1.
14 Sept 2004

HKSAR v. YIU TSUI

Citation

HKSAR v. YIU TSUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA260/2004

The Magistrate's factual findings—that the appellant remained stationary with a handcart occupying 2m by 1.2m after being warned and thus caused an obstruction—were supported by evidence and lawful application of the licence conditions; accordingly the conviction under section 4A was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
26 Jan 1999

YUNG KWAI TUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

YUNG KWAI TUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC30/1998

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds were solely matters of fact and the Court of Final Appeal will not interfere with the Magistrate's findings of fact.
30 Oct 1996

R. v. TAM YUK HA

Citation

R. v. TAM YUK HA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA933/1996

Where the English and Chinese authentic texts of by-law 35 conflict and cannot be reconciled, the court must give effect to the text that favours the appellant; applying that approach the placement of metal trays and similar portable items outside the shop did not constitute an "addition to the plan" as charged, therefore convictions could not stand.
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.
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. LUI MAY-CHUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LUI MAY-CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1536/1988

In the absence of any evidence or record demonstrating the extent or seriousness of obstruction and having regard to appellate authorities treating unrecorded hawking offenders as first offenders, the $1,000 fines were excessive; accordingly fines are reduced to $600 for the appeals generally and to $200 in the case where the appellant (Madam Mok) was 62 and only had two cartons of pears on the pavement.