HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

LAU CHIU-KWAN 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
6788-EN-1972-11-17

LAU CHIU-KWAN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000729/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 729 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
LAU Chiu-kwanAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 17th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant was charged before the magistrate with driving a private car for the carriage of passenger for hire or reward and for using a motor vehicle without Third Party Insurance. The second charge was dependent upon a conviction of the first charge.

2. There was, in my view, clear evidence. Counsel has appeared on behalf of the Appellant and has very properly indicated that after due consideration he is unable to advance any arguments in support of the appeal. The Appellant was seen by a police officer driving a car: it stopped near him and the driver asked if the police officer wanted a car: he said he did and asked "How much to Tsim Sha Tsui Railway Station?": the answer was "Any amount will do": he climbed in and he was driven to the Railway Station: he there asked "How much?" and the reply was "$2.00": he handed over a $5 note and before the change was given the driver was arrested.

3. The Appellant cross-examined the officer on the basis that he knew his passenger was a police officer and, as he said, gave a lift because it suited him. The Appellant, however, did not see fit to go into the witness-box and give any evidence in support of that contention and he did not call any witnesses.

4. The learned magistrate considered the terms of the insurance policy and he was quite satisfied that the story told by the police officer was true and that the terms of the insurance policy did not cover the journey made while the vehicle was being used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward. In those circumstances he had no alternative but to convict and this appeal must be dismissed.

 

17th November, 1972.

 

Representation: