HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1994

R. v. NG TZE LUNG

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
32062-EN-1995-06-08

R. v. NG TZE LUNG

HTML content

HCMA001514/1994

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1514 OF 1994

____________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
NG TZE LUNG

____________

 

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Sears in Court

Date of hearing: 8 June 1995

Date of delivery of judgment: 8 June 1995

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

1. This is an appeal from Mr. Bryan Chau at North Kowloon Magistrates' Court where this Appellant was convicted of theft. It was theft of about HK$40,000.00 from Kentucky Fried Chicken. It was said that he falsely keyed in required data that the customer's orders or transactions had been cancelled or voided and appropriated over a period of time some $40,000.00.

2. This was denied by him. He was saying that he was replacing money which he had had to put in for what he called shortfalls. Mr. McNamara on behalf of the Appellant takes a number of points, but it is only necessary to deal with one point, namely that nowhere in the magistrate's decision and his reasons, does he demonstrate that he has taken into account the Appellant's good character. He does not refer to it.

3. Mr. Chan on behalf of the Crown does not seek to uphold this conviction and cites a recent decision of Keith J. in Wong Fu Cheong on the 26th July 1994 when the judge dealt with this point. Although it is not necessary for a magistrate to give himself or herself a full Berada or Vine direction, the magistrate must demonstrate that he has indeed taken the Appellant's good character into account. This did not occur here, and therefore is a fatal flaw to the conviction. The appeal is allowed.

Representation:

Mr. P. Chan & Mr. W. Chan for the Crown.

Mr. J. McNamara inst'd by C.K. Mok & Co. for the Appellant.

(R.A.W. Sears)
Judge of the High Court