10 Jun 2025
On the whole evidence the credible undercover eyewitness (PW1) and the expert (PW2) established that the gathering was a triad society activity and that the appellant knowingly participated; the conviction was therefore safe on rehearing; sentencing, while requiring deterrence, warranted reduction in light of personal mitigation and remote non-custodial record.
24 Jan 1989
Invitation cards addressed to a name that may be a Triad Society can fall within 'writing of or relating to' a Triad Society, but the Crown must prove that the possessor/custodian knew that the writing related to a Triad Society; the evidence here was insufficient to prove that the cards related to the Fuk Yee Hing Triad Society or that the defendant knew such relation, therefore conviction could not be sustained and defendant was acquitted.
6 Jan 1987
Leave to appeal was refused. Although the judge's conduct in detaining and handling the two young witnesses and his poor record-keeping were criticised and found to exceed his statutory authority, those actions did not demonstrate the loss of impartiality required to set aside convictions; the judge had properly warned himself about dangers of uncorroborated evidence and the statutory presumption under s.28 of the Societies Ordinance lawfully supported conviction for membership based on possession of writings.
22 Jan 1985
Convictions affirmed; the magistrate erred in principle by imposing a global sentence but the sentences were not manifestly inadequate. The court varied the sentence: for each of the three convictions six months imprisonment to run concurrently, suspended for two years, and fines of HKD 600 on counts (a) and (b) and HKD 800 on count (c). This correction remedies the sentencing error while respecting the sentencing discretion.
24 Jul 1980
An admission or truthful confession to a police officer in response to questioning does not, by itself, constitute 'professing' to be an office-bearer under s.19 Societies Ordinance; the offence requires mens rea beyond mere conscious utterance and 'professing' must be construed in context, so the conviction could not stand on the confession alone.
18 Jul 1980
There is no lawful 'unofficial tariff' exempting triad members from custodial sentences; sentencing must reflect legislative seriousness and case facts. The admitted facts showed active membership and recruitment activity, so the magistrate's fine-only sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appropriate disposal on these facts is a custodial sentence; accordingly the fine sentence was quashed and replaced with 9 months imprisonment followed by two years police supervision.
18 Apr 1980
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate relied on uncorroborated testimony that could be accounted for by the witness's own triad membership and because the witness's subsequent conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice destroyed his credibility, rendering the convictions unsafe.
1 Mar 1978
An admission made in custody or in answer to police questioning can fall within the weaker notion of 'professing' under s.20(2) and thus support a charge of professing membership, but on the facts the conviction as entered (for 'claiming') was unsustainable; the magistrate also improperly relied in part on voir dire material, and the appropriate disposition is to allow the appeal and set aside the sentence.
25 Aug 1977
The convictions of the first and second appellants could not stand because the Crown failed to prove that the police witness was qualified as an expert on triad societies and did not rely on s.39 of the Societies Ordinance; therefore there was no admissible evidence establishing that the alleged organisation was a triad society, and the translations contained prejudicial glosses, so the appeals of the first two appellants are allowed and their convictions quashed. The third appellant's guilty plea to membership of the notorious Wo On Lok was sustained but his sentence was reduced and suspende…
17 Feb 1977
The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was excessive for a first conviction under s.20(1) of the Societies Ordinance given the appellant's age, clear record and mitigation and because the magistrate impermissibly relied on matters not charged; the appropriate sentence is three months' imprisonment.