30 Mar 2007
The court held that mere employment as a waiter at a vice establishment does not, without more, create reasonable suspicion of being a manager or assisting management, and where the prosecution offers no evidence costs should follow the event.
3 Oct 2003
Summary judgment dismissed because the affidavit evidence on both sides raised a real triable issue whether the respondent, while an undischarged bankrupt, took part in or was concerned in the management of the company contrary to s.156 such that factual inquiry into how the company was run is required and cannot be resolved on affidavits alone.
4 May 1987
The appeal of the 1st appellant succeeds because his mere presence and subscriber status did not sufficiently prove he provided or knew of the indecent performance; the appeals of the 2nd and 3rd appellants were dismissed because the 3rd's cautioned admission and conduct established he was in charge and the 2nd's possession of keys and unchallenged tenancy/insurance/name card documents supported an inference she was in actual charge and therefore liable for managing the indecent live performance.
24 Feb 1981
On the admitted facts and eyewitness undercover evidence the Nightclub was used mainly for organising prostitution under s117(3); appellants who introduced girls, collected fees, or exercised control as licensee/manager had actual or constructive knowledge and thus were properly convicted under s139(b); hearsay remarks were not relied upon and did not affect the convictions.
14 Nov 1980
The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the premises were used wholly or mainly for prostitution as defined in s.117(3) and that the second appellant, by controlling business records and takings as cashier, was assisting in the management; therefore the convictions under s.139(b) of the Crimes Ordinance were upheld.