HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

LIN SAI-KAU 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
7054-EN-1976-08-18

LIN SAI-KAU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000782/1976

  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 782 OF 1976

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

  

BETWEEN  
 LIN Sai-kauAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Cons J.

Date of Judgment: 18th August, 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The appellant was charged with an offence against the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) and one for failing to have licences for his dogs. He had twenty-three dogs, which he kept in cages far too small. He was not in a position properly to care for them. Many were in poor condition and sick. He pleaded guilty to both charges. In addition to imposing fines the learned magistrate ordered the dogs to be confiscated.

2. The appellant promises to obtain better accommodation for the dogs with a friend, but what he describes seems to me only a little better than before. Then he earns only a small salary as a care-taker. This can hardly be enough to feed himself and that number of dogs adequately. Thus the order of the magistrate was sensible. However, the law does not give the magistrate the power to make that order. It empowers him only to order that the dogs be removed and detained for a period of time: sec.5(1). That period may be limited by reference to recovery of health: sec 5(2). I propose, therefore, to substitute for the order of the magistrate an order that each and every one of the twenty-three dogs be detained in the Government Kennel until they recover full health and so certified by a senior veterinary officer

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

William Li, Crown Counsel, for the Respondent.