HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

WONG WAI 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
4293-EN-1975-07-14

WONG WAI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000438/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 438 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:  
 WONG WAIAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 14th July, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to obstruction and hawking without a licence and was sentenced to a fine of $20 on each charge. At the time he committed the offence a wooden cart and its contents were confiscated and the magistrate made an order directing that these articles should be forfeited under section 86A(1)(a) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.

2. The facts were that the appellant, who was a very sick man, was looking after a hawker's cart and its contents for him while he was away. The owner of these articles has a hawker's licence. The contents of the wooden cart consisted of 359 pairs of trousers, two cloth bags and 10 dress hangers.

3. In my view, the facts of this case enable me to make an order under section 86A(1)(b) exempting these articles from forfeiture.

4. These goods, the trousers etc. and the wooden cart were not the property of the appellant and, presumably, if an order for forfeiture were made the owner would have the right to recover the cost of these articles from the appellant. I don't think that such a serious effect for what is a comparatively minor offence was in the contemplation of the legislature when section 86A was enacted.

5. I therefore allow the appeal to the extent that the order forfeiting the equipment and commodities in this case be quashed and that the cart and its contents be returned to their rightful owner.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Caird for crown.