21 May 2002
HKSAR v. YAU CHIU MING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. YAU CHIU MING
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA300/2002
The magistrate's factual findings rejecting the appellant's return‑call/prankster defence and that the calls were made without reasonable cause were safe, but the evidence in fact established two distinct periods of persistent calling separated by a 17‑day cessation, meaning the charge as particularised (single continuing offence from 1 May to 18 June 2001) was substantively defective; the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for trial before another magistrate on an amended charge particularising one continuous period (1 June 2001 to 18 June 2001).