HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1989

THE QUEEN v. CHOW WAN CHING

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
24378-EN-1989-12-15

THE QUEEN v. CHOW WAN CHING

HTML content

HCMA001075/1989

IN THE SUPREHE COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1075 OF 1989

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

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

AND

CHOW WAN CHING

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

Coram: Hon. Penlington, J.A. in Court (sitting as an additional High Court Judge)

Date of hearing: 15 December 1989

Date of delivery of judgment: 15 December 1989

 

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

Penlington, J.A.:

1. This is an appeal against conviction of hawking without a licence.

2. The sole ground of appeal which has been argued was that there was evidence from a Police Sergeant who arrived some ten minutes after the Appellant was arrested by a foreman of the Urban Services Department and this Sergeant said that the cart which the Appellant had was covered and, as this was a cooked food cart if it was covered, it was not likely that the food there was not and that the Appellant was in Fact hawking at the time.

3. The trial magistrate in his findings does not specifically consider this evidence which was elicited from the Sergeant, not by the Defendant himself but in cross-examination. However the Magistrate did say this:

"I also found that D.W.2's (i.e. the police sergeant's) evidence did not help the Defendant further as he only arrived after the incident.''

and as pointed out by crown counsel, some ten minutes after the instance. That being so I was quite satisfied that the Magistrate did consider this aspect of evidence which was essentially a matter of credibility. It would have peen preferable if the evidence had been specifically dealt with but I am not satisfied, this being a pure finding of fact, that the trial Magistrate's findings are such as this Court should interfere. The appeal is dismissed.

(R.G. Penlington)

Justice of Appeal

Representation:

G.C. Rheas, Counsel for Crown

Guy Holland (D.L.A.) for Applicant