HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

LEE YUK-PO 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
4655-EN-1975-07-04

LEE YUK-PO v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000475/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 475 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:  
 LEE Yuk-poAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 4th July, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of obstruction contrary to section 4A(1) of the Summary Offences Ordinance and was fined $20. The appellant, who appeared in person, complained that he had committed this offence at the same place many times before and that he had not been prosecuted before. Be that as it may, there was clear evidence that he was guilty of the offence.

2. The obstruction was caused by two carts on the pavement near a wall in Pratas Street near its junction with Po On Road. In the circumstances, there was no alternative other than to dismiss his appeal against conviction.

3. The relevant Form 19 of the Magistrates Court Forms states that certain property of the appellant was detained. This included two wooden carts, the property of the appellant. These are obviously valuable to the appellant and they should be returned to him. No order was made by the magistrate for their disposal and I therefore order that these carts should be returned to the appellant forthwith.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

E. Soh for crown.