HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1985

THE QUEEN v. NAM CHING SHAN

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
40309-EN-1985-04-10

THE QUEEN v. NAM CHING SHAN

HTML content

HCMA000277/1985

MAGISTRACY APPEAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

No. 277 OF 1985

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

BETWEEN:-

The QueenRespondent

AND

NAM Ching-shanAppellant

_________________

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Penlinaton in Court

Date of hearing: 10th April 1985

Date of delivery of judgment: 10th April 1985

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Preliminary

1. This was an appeal against conviction on a charge of evasion of liability by deception. The facts as found by the magistrate were that the appellant had obtained student bus card from a friend and when he was found with it by the police made a statement in which he said that he had used the card in order to obtain concessionary rates on buses.

Conviction

2. The whole issue here turned on whether the appellant's confession statement was admissible and if it was what weight should be out on it. The magistrate was of the view that it was perfectly voluntary statement and that he could place sufficient weight on it to convict the appellant of the offence. I see no reason whatever why I should disagree with that finding of fact.

Sentence

3. The appellant was bound over in the sum of $500.00 for one year and he was fined $400.00 and the magistrate ordered that the conviction be recorded. The appellant is aged 18 and has a clear record. If it had not been for his own confession made to the police the charge could not have been brought against him. I therefore granted leave to the appellant to appeal out of time against sentence and allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent that I ordered that no conviction should be recorded.

(R.G. Penlington)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

P.V. Conlon, C.C. for the Respondent/Crown.

Appellant, NAM Ching-shan in person.