18 Nov 1987
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. IP PING KAN
- Citation
- ATTORNEY GENERAL v. IP PING KAN
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA791/1987
The magistrate erred in finding no case to answer because section 137(2) applies where there is prima facie evidence that the defendant exercised control, direction or influence over a woman to further her prostitution; such evidence was present (respondent ushering and offering girls and knowing the services), payment not having been made is irrelevant to the presumption, and the burden accordingly shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption; the matter is remitted to the magistrate to determine after hearing all evidence whether the respondent has rebutted the presumption.