26 Oct 2015
HKSAR v. LAW YAT TING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LAW YAT TING
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FACC3/2015
Closing a vehicle door, absent any evidence of alteration, harm or unauthorised change, is mere touching and does not satisfy the statutory meaning of 'tampers' in s49; the evidence could not support the conviction and the conviction must be quashed.