Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 160(3) crimes ordinance

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. SHEK CHU KONG

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEK CHU KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA193/2008

The appellate court upheld the magistrate's factual findings that the appellant entered a building through a locked gate, was observed standing and looking at letterboxes, gave implausible explanations and attempted to leave only when accosted; those facts supported an inference of loitering and requisite mens rea and would reasonably cause concern to PW1, therefore the conviction under s.160(3) was safe and was affirmed.
26 Feb 2003

HKSAR v. CHING LONG TIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHING LONG TIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA858/2002

Magistrate's acceptance of PW1's credible evidence together with the uncontradicted chronology and security evidence permitted the only reasonable inference that the appellant was the person who stood on the toilet to look over the partition and that his conduct (tarrying/peering) showed intent or caused reasonable concern; the cautioned statement warranted little weight; accordingly the conviction was upheld.
5 Jan 2001

HKSAR v. WONG SIU KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG SIU KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA809/2000

On the facts the three‑month custodial sentence for loitering causing concern under s160(3) was not excessive, but considering the appellant's family hardship, prior custody time and employment, the appropriate disposition was to suspend the three‑month term for three years so that it will be activated if he commits another offence within that period.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SHEK CHU KONG

HKSAR v. CHING LONG TIN

HKSAR v. WONG SIU KIT