HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1990

THE QUEEN v. CHOW HON KIT AND OTHERS

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
35413-EN-1990-02-23

THE QUEEN v. CHOW HON KIT AND OTHERS

HTML content

HCMA000067/1990

IN TAE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 67 OF 1990

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

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

AND

 

CHOW HON KIT1st Appellant
KWOK KAM WAH2nd Appellant
LEUNG TAK WAI3rd Appellant

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

Coram: Hon. Ryan, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 23 February 1990

Date of delivery of judgment: 23 February 1990

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellants were convicted after pleas of guilty for a charge of unlawful assembly. They applied for leave to appeal out of time against conviction which I granted. I have had an opportunity to read the papers and I agree with the Crown's concession that on the brief facts that were presented to the Magistrate, he should not have accepted the pleas of guilty. The Magistrate in his Statement of Findings very fairly concedes this. An essential elementof the charge is that the conduct of the appellants was intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that they will commit a breach of the peace or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace. The agreed facts lacked this ingredient. Accordingly the appeals are allowed and the conviction are quashed.

(T.J. Ryan)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Coghlan, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown

Mr Philip Wong, instructed by D.L.A., for 2nd Appellant

1st Appellant, CHOW Hon-kit, in person, absent

2nd and 3rd Appellants present in Court