THE QUEEN v. TSUI KING FOO

HCMA000094/1984

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.94 OF 1984

___________

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	AND
	TSUI KING FOO	Appellant

_____________

Coram: Hooper, J.

Date: 30 March 1984

 

_______________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_______________________

1. In this case the appellant appealed against his conviction in Causeway Bay Magistrate's Court in respect of the offence of managing a gambling establishment contrary to Section 5(b) of the Gambling Ordinance Cap.148 of the Laws of Hong Kong. Crown Counsel did not support the conviction and I allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence imposed of HK$25,000.00.

2. There was sufficient evidence before the learned Magistrate to raise the presumption that the premises, the subject matter of the charge, constituted a gambling establichment on the date of the police raid, namely the 14th of December 1983.

3. The only admissible evidence aginst the appellant, who was the second defendant in the trial below, was a rent receipt in the name of the appellant in respect of the month of November 1983 and evidence, that his wife, three children and an elderly woman were in the premises on the 14th of December when the police raid was conducted and that many implements of gambling were found in the premises in various places which were easily accessible.

4. There was no evidence that the defendant had ever occupied or resided in the premises himself. There was no evidence that he knew about the presence of the implements of gambling. The learned Magistrate based his verdict on the contention, inter alia, that it was never in issue that the appellant resided there with his wife. In fact there was no evidence as to this and it doesn't necessarily follow that the tenant is residing in the premises which he is renting or that he knows what is being done therein by the actual occupant.

5. In my view there was insufficient evidence admissible against the appellant upon which the Magistrate could reach the conclusion that the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that the appellant was guilty on the date in question of managing a gambling establishment.

(N.B. Hooper) Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. Alexander Wong (Lo, Wong & Tsui) for the appellant.

Mr. J. Jenkyn-Jones, Crown Counsel for Crown.