HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1980

KO PING SHUM AND ANOTHER 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
6183-EN-1980-09-20

KO PING SHUM AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000636/1980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 636 OF 1980.

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

 

BETWEEN
KO PING SHUM and WU KWOK SINAPPELLANTS
AND
THE QUEENRESPONDENT

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

Coram: O'Connor, J.

Date of Judgment: 20th September, 1980.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellants were charged seperately with loitering contrary to section 160(1) of the Crimes Ordinance Cap.200. They appeal against their convictions. Crown counsel, quite properly, states he is unable to support the convictions.

2. The offence consists in loitering in a public place and failing to give a satisfactory account of oneself and a satisfactory explanation for ones presence there. The particulars of offence, in respect of these appellants, alleged inability to give satisfactory accounts and explanations rather than failure to do so. The charges were therefore defective, though not fatally so.

3. There was evidence that the second appellant was asked for and gave an explanation of his presence. There is no finding by the learned magistrate in respect thereof. There was no evidence as to whether the first appellant was either asked for or gave or failed to give an explanation or account. The learned magistrate in his findings of fact has made no reference at all to the second limb of the charges, that is to the failure to give satisfactory accounts and explanations. He has proceeded on the basis that the offence consists of loitering simpliciter. Accordingly I allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions and sentences.

 

 

( R. O'Connor )
Judge of the High Court

 

Representation:

Pang Kin-kee (D.L.A.) for both appellants.

E.H.Martin, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown/respondent.