23 Jul 1996
The conviction was upheld because the proved primary facts — the appellant collecting net proceeds, repeated interactions with money collectors, and possession of $17,000 — permitted an irresistible inference that he was operating the gambling establishment; the Magistrate's definition of 'operation' was consistent with authority and there was no improper burden shift.
6 Dec 1991
The appeal is allowed because the evidence — the appellant acting as banker for three rounds and having about $5,000 on his person with only $220 on the table — was insufficient to establish he was operating a gambling establishment under s.5(a) of the Gambling Ordinance; the magistrate misapplied the cited precedent regarding a banker's bias.
4 Jul 1991
On the evidence (police testimony, three receipts with time entries and the cashier's statement) the magistrate was entitled to find an effective charge of HK$29 per room per hour was levied irrespective of tea served, that the rooms were let for the purpose of playing mahjong and that this constituted conducting mahjong by way of trade or business exceeding the permitted HK$20 per day; the appellants failed to rebut the presumption and convictions were affirmed.
8 Dec 1977
The fines of $5,000 each were manifestly excessive because the magistrate did not consider the appellants' means and mitigation; accordingly the appropriate exercise of appellate sentencing discretion is to reduce each fine to $500 and to order return of stools and tables seized.