HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. TSANG LING HO and Another

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
16586-EN-1996-02-15

THE QUEEN v. TSANG LING HO and Another

HTML content

HCMA000024/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.24 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
TSANG LING HOAppellants
NGAI HOI

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

Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 8 February 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 15 February 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a conviction for hawking without a licence, obstruction, contrary to s.4A of the Summary Offence Ordinance Cap.228 and also against a fine of $1,000 on each offence and an order confiscating a private car. The facts simply were that the appellants were seen to be selling goods from the boot of a private car parked in Granville Road.

2. I had no difficulty in dismissing the appeal against conviction as the evidence against the appellants in that regard was overwhelming.

3. The only point of merit in the appeal was the submission that the confiscation of the private car was a harsh punishment. I agreed. Confiscation of the goods in question was sufficient in this case. I therefore allowed the appeal to the extent that I removed the confiscation order so far as the car was concerned. The penalty otherwise remains the same.

Representation:

Mr Tam Yiu Ho, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellants (Tsang Ling Ho & Ngai Hoi) in person

- 2 -

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