Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Summary offences ordinance

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA56/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in this jurisdiction first offenders should not normally be fined above HKD 600; repeat offenders may be fined up to HKD 1,000 (or higher for persistent recidivists); magistrates may give credit for frankness about past offending (example reductions to HKD 800); charging should follow the Hawker By-laws for consistency rather than use the Summary Offences Ordinance solely to obtain higher maximum penalties.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA55/1989

    First offenders charged with hawker obstruction should not be fined more than $600; repeat offenders may be fined up to $1,000 or higher for persistent recidivism; courts may reduce fines to $800 where the appellant voluntarily disclosed prior offences; charging should be consistent and, where appropriate, under Hawker By-laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA57/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui Golden Mile the proper sentencing approach is to limit fines for first offenders to no more than $600, allow higher fines (commonly up to $1,000) for repeat offenders, and permit modest reductions (eg to $800) where the offender voluntarily discloses previous offending; charging should be consistent under the appropriate Hawker By-laws rather than Summary Offences simply to attract higher maximum penalties.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. LEE KAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LEE KAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA52/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui 'Golden Mile' a first offender's fine should not exceed $600; subsequent offences may attract fines up to $1,000 or higher for persistent recalcitrance; honesty about prior offences justifies modest reductions (e.g. to $800); charging should be consistent under the Hawker By-laws rather than using the Summary Offences Ordinance to obtain higher penalties.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA33/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Golden Mile area the court establishes a sentencing policy: first offenders should not be fined more than $600 absent special aggravation, repeat offenders may be fined up to $1,000 or more for recalcitrance, and magistrates may apply a localized deterrent element but must strive for consistency and charge under the appropriate by‑laws.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA34/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui area the court adopts a policy that first offenders should not be fined above $600 absent special reasons, repeat offenders may attract fines up to $1,000 and higher for persistent recalcitrance; courts should apply this policy consistently, give credit when appellants volunteer previous offences, and prefer charging under the appropriate Hawker By‑laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance solely to secure higher penalties.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHU PO JUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHU PO JUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA36/1989

    The court applied a consistent sentencing policy: reduce fines for first offenders to $600 (or to $800 where credit for frank revelation of prior offences was given), uphold higher fines for repeat offenders up to $1,000 (and allow higher penalties for persistent recalcitrance), and require consistent charging under the appropriate hawker by‑laws rather than using summary offence provisions solely to obtain higher penalties.