LAU HOI KIT AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

CACC000252/1980

[Massage establishment - strict liability of licencee for acts of the manager.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1980 No. 252

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

BETWEEN
	LAU HOI KIT	1st Appellant
	LO SHAN	2nd Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Yang, J.

Date of Judgment: 3 April 1980

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The 2nd appellant was the licencee of a massage establishment called the Flora Court Steam Bath House at 607, Nathan Road, 10th floor, Kowloon. He was convicted of two offences: (1) being the licencee of the licensed massage establishment, he provided massage outside the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.; (2) being the licencee of the licensed massage establishment, he allowed a male person to be treated by female persons.

2. The massage establishment was raided by the police on 25th October 1979. The appellant was not on the premises at the time, but his co-defendant, LAU Hoi-kit, was and admitted to the police that he was the manager there.

3. Applying Linnett v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner⁽¹⁾, the trial magistrate found that the appellant, as licencee, was strictly liable for the offences though it was the manager who actually permitted massage to be provided by females for males outside the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

4. In my view the magistrate erred in relying on the manager's admission as evidence against the appellant. Apart from this admission, there was no evidence that the appellant had delegated his authority and duty to the manager (per Humphreys, J. in Linnett's Case, supra, at p.296), or that it was the appellant who had appointed LAU Hoi-kit as his manager (see Reg. v. Winson⁽²⁾). Nor was there any finding that LAU Hoi-kit was the manager or servant of the appellant within the meaning of sec.8 of the Miscellaneous Licences Ordinance, Cap.114.

5. For these reasons the appeal is allowed. Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.

 

 

(1) (1946) KB 209

(2) (1969) 1 QB 371, 378