Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hawker by-laws

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA31/1989

    The court adopted and applied a consistent sentencing policy: first offenders should have fines not exceeding HK$600 for hawking obstruction in the Golden Mile area, repeat offenders may be fined up to HK$1,000 and higher for recalcitrant conduct, and magistrates may reduce fines to reflect honesty in disclosing prior offences; charges should be brought under the appropriate Hawker By‑laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance to avoid arbitrary elevation of penalties.

  • 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. 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.

  • 24 Dec 1976

    KO WAH-SANG v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    KO WAH-SANG v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1238/1976

    Charge for hawking without a licence (By-law 5(1)) was incorrect where appellant possessed a licence and only breached its conditions; mandatory confiscation applies only to designated offences and not to breaches of licence conditions, therefore conviction and confiscation were set aside and seized goods returned.

  • 19 Jun 1975

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LUI FUK YUEN

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LUI FUK YUEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC300/1975

    When both equipment and commodity have been seized under s.86(1) and the accused is convicted of a designated hawker offence, s.86A(1) requires the court to order forfeiture of all seized property; the magistrate had no discretion to confiscate only part of the seized items and must order confiscation of both equipment and commodity.

  • 19 Jun 1975

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM MOK

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM MOK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC301/1975

    When both equipment and commodity have been seized under s.86(1) and the accused is convicted of a designated hawker offence, s.86A(1)'s mandatory direction to the court requires forfeiture of all items seized; the word 'or' in the subsection does not afford the court a discretion to forfeit only one category where both were seized, and the magistrate's contrary approach was erroneous.

  • 4 Jun 1975

    MAN LAU-GUN v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    MAN LAU-GUN v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC349/1975

    The court quashed the forfeiture because the appellant established "special reasons" under section 86A(b) — specifically, that the goods were stored in a tailor's shop in a prohibited area for legitimate business reasons and he intended to proceed to a permitted hawking area, so forfeiture was not justified.