Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Touting

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2006

HKSAR v. TONG YIU WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. TONG YIU WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA811/2005

Section 20(1) must be read with section 94A CPO so that 'without reasonable cause' is an exception/negative averment and the defendant bears the persuasive/legal burden on balance of probabilities to prove reasonable cause; that allocation does not breach article 11(1) HKBOR because it is justified, necessary and proportionate in the airport context; magistrate's factual findings that appellant was touting were supported by evidence, so conviction stands though sentence was adjusted to reflect the principal offence of touting.
22 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. SO NAI CHUNG PILOT

Citation

HKSAR v. SO NAI CHUNG PILOT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA571/2004

Application for certification refused because the issues were matters of sentencing discretion and factual findings by the magistrate, not questions of law of great and general importance warranting certification under s.32(2).
7 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. SO NAI CHUNG PILOT

Citation

HKSAR v. SO NAI CHUNG PILOT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA571/2004

Appellate court upheld the magistrate's factual finding that an experienced taxi driver knew Carpark 2 was a bylaw area and that the appellant had admitted the offence; absence of signage did not undermine that finding, and a fine of HK$2,500 was within statutory limits and not excessive, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
30 Jun 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN YUEN CHEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YUEN CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1169/1998

The appeal is dismissed because there is no basis to disturb the magistrate's acceptance of prosecution evidence and findings on credibility; the appellant's admission of presence undermines the identification challenge and lack of Airport Authority notices does not provide a legal defence.
22 Mar 1985

THE QUEEN v. HO KWAI YEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HO KWAI YEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA167/1985

The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of s6A(1) because there was no evidence the appellant 'importuned' the persons or that his conduct actually annoyed or was likely to annoy them; therefore the magistrate's finding should have been not guilty and the appeal is allowed.
21 Sept 1973

WONG KWAI-LUK v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG KWAI-LUK v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC707/1973

Appellate court upheld the magistrate’s adverse credibility finding because the appellant failed to call corroborative evidence (colleague), the employer’s authority did not authorize approaching passengers at random, and the fine of $250 was not manifestly excessive; therefore conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. TONG YIU WAH

HKSAR v. SO NAI CHUNG PILOT

HKSAR v. SO NAI CHUNG PILOT

HKSAR v. CHAN YUEN CHEONG

THE QUEEN v. HO KWAI YEUNG

WONG KWAI-LUK v. THE QUEEN