HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. TSANG WAI KEUNG

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
16554-EN-1995-12-19

THE QUEEN v. TSANG WAI KEUNG

HTML content

HCMA001052/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1052 OF 1995

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
TSANG WAI KEUNGAppellant

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

Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 13 December 1995

Date of handing down judgment : 19 December 1995

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a conviction for crossing continuous double white lines. The only point on the appeal was that the appellant who had appeared in person at his trial, had challeged the evidence of a Police Officer but had been refused permission to check the notebook of the Officer, who had claimed that he was giving evidence in accordance with his notebook. The Magistrate refused the application on the basis that "there is not the slightest indication of any inconsistancy". This he did without even checking the notebook himself. Thus the Appellant was effectively being barred from following a perfectly proper line of cross examination. This was a material irregularity and fatal to the conviction in this case. The appeal was allowed.

Representation:

Mr McMeans, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant Tsang Wai Keung in person

(J.M. Duffy)
Judge of the High Court