HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

LAM KIT CHUNG 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
592-EN-1977-11-26

LAM KIT CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001102/1977

 

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 1977 No. 1102

 

BETWEEN  
 LAM Kit ChungAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 26th November, 1977.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of setting out a heap of sand and a heap of cement on a certain pavement in Connaught Road, Central and sentenced to be fined in the sum of $200. The offence is contrary to section 4(A) of the Summary Offences Ordinance. The Crown did not seek to support the conviction for "setting out" the heap of sand, but they asked the court to exercise its discretion and remit the case to the Magistrates Court to enable the magistrate to consider an amendment of the summons to read that the appellant did, without lawful authority or excuse, "leave" a heap of sand and a heap of cement on the pavement, an offence contrary to the same section.

2. I did not think that this was a proper case to exercise my discretion. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for three months and a fine of $5,000. It is obvious from the facts of this case and from the way the magistrate considered the matter that it was a trivial offence and it took place as long ago as the 3rd July, 1977. In the event, therefore, I allowed the appeal and set aside the fine which, if paid, must be returned to the appellant.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

R. MAYNE (Deacons) for Appellant

Lindsay for Crown