PANG YING-TUNG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC001047/1981
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 1981
_________________
Between
PANG Ying-tung | Appellant | |
| AND | ||
| The Queen | Respondent |
_____________
Coram: Baber, J. in Court
Date: 12 March 1982
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
1. The Appellant in this case was summoned as a prosecution witness - and apparently as the principal and indispensable prosecution witness - in a careless driving case. On entering the witness box he declared himself to be a Christian but refused, on allegedly conscientious religious grounds, either to take the oath or to affirm in the form laid down in section 7(3) of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11 of the multitudinous Laws of Hong Kong). He offered to make a statement in a form of his own devising. The magistrate warned him of the consequences under section 21(4) of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227) and gave him time to consider the matter ,but the Appellant continued to refuse either to take the oath or make an affirmation in the prescribed form, with the result that the prosecution was forced to offer no evidence against the defendant in the case who was consequently acquitted. The magistrate then summarily fined the Appellant $250, giving him 14 days to pay in default of which he was to serve 14 days' imprisonment. The Appellant now appeals against the Magistrate's order.
2. In my view the action of the magistrate was correct, the penalty not excessive and the appeal should be dismissed. The early sections of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance are somewhat loosely worded. Nevertheless, whatever may be the position as regards a person who professes to be neither a Christian nor a Jew (nor both) it seems to me that a person who professes to be a Christian or a Jew has two choices only, either to take the oath in the prescribed form or to affirm in the prescribed form; he is not entitled to make a declaration using a term of words of his own devising.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
(E. G. Baber) |
Representation:
Miss Jacqueline Leong of counsel assigned by the D.L.A. for the appellant
Mr. Keith Oderberg, Crown Counsel for the Respondent