TSE WAI PIU AND ANOTHER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

HCMA000189/1984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE	MAGISTRACY APPEAL
	NO. 189 OF 1984

BETWEEN:-

	TSE Wai-piu	1st Appellant
	TANG Chau-ping	2nd Appellant
	AND
	The Attorney-General	Respondent

_________

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jones in Court.

Date of hearing: 27 April 1984

Date of delivery of judgment: 27 April 1984

 

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. The two appellants who are husband and wife were jointly charged with Madam Chan Shu-yun with fighting in a public place contrary to Section 25 of the Public Order Ordinance Cap. 245. The facts show that it was a relatively minor dispute between neighbours. The two appellants pleaded guilty to the charge before a magistrate Mr. I.M. Griffiths at San Po Kong Magistrates Court on the lst March 1984. Each appellant was fined $100. Madam Chan pleaded not guilty, and her trial was heard by another magistrate Mr. T. Davis on the 13th March 1984 when the appellants gave evidence for the prosecution. The case against Madam Chan was dismissed. However, the learned magistrate bound over Madam Chan and the appellants in the sum of $1,000 for 2 years to keep the peace pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361. The appellants appeal against this order.

               

2. In his statement of findings the magistrate said he bound over the appellants because they had given evidence as witnesses in the case.

               

3. The Justices of the Peace Act 1361 prescribes for a binding over order to be made where there is a likelihood that there will be a future breach of the peace. There was no evidence before the magistrate to this effect nor were the appellants given an opportunity to argue against such an order being made see R v. Aubrey-Fletcher Ex parte Thompson (1969) 2 all E.R. 846.

               

4. The order was not justified with the result that it will be quashed.

( B.L. Jones ) Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Appellants in person.

Mr. A.A. Bruce (Legal Department) for Respondent.