HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

MAN LAU-GUN 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
3355-EN-1975-06-04

MAN LAU-GUN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000349/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:  
 MAN Lau-gunAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 4th June, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of obstruction under the provisions of the Hawker By-laws which are made under the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance. He was fined $5 and an order was made forfeiting the goods that he was hawking.

2. In the court below he admitted the obstruction and stated that he was about fifteen yards outside the hawker permitted area. He stated that he was not hawking and he protested against the order for forfeiture.

3. At the hearing of the appeal he said that at the time he was arrested he was outside a tailor's shop in which he deposits his goods when he is not hawking. He said that he had loaded his trolley and was going to proceed to a hawker permitted area at the time. The appellant also told the court that the goods in question were worth between $6,000 and $7,000 and were goods in his possession on credit from certain factories.

4. Although this was never mentioned in the court below I felt I could accept that the appellant was being truthful with the court. The tailor's shop, it would seem, is in a hawker prohibited area. I see no reason why a hawker should not deposit his goods in such a shop and I see no reason also why he should not be permitted to pick up the goods from the shop when he wants to hawk and to proceed from there to the hawker permitted area returning to the hawker prohibited area when his day's work was done. This seems to me to be a case which comes within the "Special Reasons" referred to in section 86A(b) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance.

5. I therefore order that the order for forfeiture be quashed and the goods forfeited to be returned to the appellant.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Stevenson for crown.