HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

LAM LEUNG-PING 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
5696-EN-1977-06-18

LAM LEUNG-PING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000579/1977

 

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 1977 No. 579

 

BETWEEN:  
 LAM Leung-pingAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 18th June, 1977.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was originally charged with the offence of criminal intimidation but the charge was amended to a charge of common assault. Why this was done is not stated on the record and I must confess that I can see no reason for such an amendment. The evidence showed that the appellant threatened one CHAN Kin-wing.

2. The two men were hawkers and there was a quarrel about the size and position of certain hawker stalls. There is no evidence other than evidence that threatening words were uttered by the appellant to Mr. Chan. There was no evidence that the appellant was armed with any weapon and there is no evidence that he made any gesture or touched Mr. Chan in any way. It is trite law that mere words cannot amount to assault. In my view, proof of the essential element of common assault. In my view, proof of the essential element of common assault was missing in this case and, therefore, the appeal must be allowed. There was, I may add, ample evidence of criminal intimidation but that charge, as I have said, was withdrawn.

3. The appeal therefore is allowed and the conviction set aside.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

A.A. Hoosen (H.H. Lau & Co.) for appellant.

Evans for Crown.