HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1970

NG TAT v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
6358-EN-1970-12-28

NG TAT v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000662/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 662 OF 1970

-----------------

BETWEEN
Ng Tat

Appellant

AND
The Queen

Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Mills-Owens J.

Date of Judgment: 28 December 1970

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The appellant was convicted on the following charge:-

"(A)Keeping an unlicensed massage establishment:
Particulars of offence:
Ng Tat, you are charged that on the 6th day of November, 1970 at Good Luck Hotel, 145-9 Wanchai Road, 2nd floor, in this Colony, you did keep a business specified in the first schedule of the Miscellaneous licences Ordinance to wit, a Massage Establishment, except under and in accordance with a licence issued under this Ordinance by the Commissioner of Police."

He was fined in the sum of $200 and appeals against conviction. As it appears to me, in the state of the evidence, his appeal is bound to succeed; Crown counsel concedes that he finds difficulty in supporting the conviction.

2. Clearly, such a charge involves two elements: (a) that of some continuity (Cf. Dudlev v. Holland (1963) 3 All E.R. 732; and vide the cases cited in Stroud, Vol.2 p.1552(11)); and (b) that of having control of the business as a business (Stroud, loc.cit.). In the present case there was nothing in the evidence to distinguish the appellant's position from that of a mere foki or employee, which he himself said he was, on the occasion of the police raid. Accordingly his appeal is allowed, the conviction quashed and the fine (if paid) ordered to be refunded.

 

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

E. Soh, C.C. for Respondent.

Oral Judgment reduced into writing.