8 Nov 1985
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHAM CHUEN
- Citation
- ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHAM CHUEN
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA722/1985
The majority held that questions put by a constable which are material to other offences (e.g. attempted burglary) do not amount to a requirement under s.160(1) and therefore a suspect cannot be compelled to answer such questions for the purposes of proving the second ingredient; consequently failure to answer those questions did not establish the offence of loitering. The majority also held that no strict form of words is required when making a requirement under s.160(1) and police should confine questions to identity and reasons for presence. The Court of Appeal is not bound by earlier deci…