HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

R. v. CHUNG COLIN

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
16572-EN-1996-01-25

R. v. CHUNG COLIN

HTML content

HCMA001166/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL
NO. 1166 OF 1995

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
CHUNG COLINAppellant

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

Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 19 January 1996

Date of delivery of judgment : 25 January 1996

 

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

Duffy, J.:

1. This was an appeal against a conviction for making off without payment for a meal in a restaurant. The appellant is a serving police officer. The I.C.A.C. were conducting an undercover operation at the Hung Fat Restaurant in Yiu Tung Street as they had received complaints about the restaurant giving advantages to police officers in order not to be prosecuted for obstruction. The I.C.A.C. officers at that restaurant observed a group of police officers in uniform having a meal, the estimated cost of which was approximately $80. The appellant was seen to place $30 on a counter in the restaurant before leaving. That was the only sum paid for the food which the police officers had eaten. He was then charged with making off without payment, contrary to s.18C of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. This section requires that the Crown prove that the failure to pay was dishonest.

2. This case clearly had to do with corruption, not dishonesty. This charge in my view was totally misconceived and should never have been brought, having obviously been substituted for a corruption charge for which presumably the I.C.A.C. did not have sufficient evidence. It was quite clear from the evidence that there was no complaint by the restaurant about the fact that the officers only paid $30. There was no dishonesty. This appeal must be allowed.

Representation:

Ms M.A. Crabtree, DPCC, for Crown

Miss Rosaline Wong (Norman M.K. Yeung & Co.), for Appellant

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