HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1999

HKSAR v. WONG KA WAI

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
20008-EN-1999-05-12

HKSAR v. WONG KA WAI

HTML content

HCMA000232/1999

1999, No. MA 232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 232 OF 1999

____________

BETWEEN
HKSARRespondent
AND
WONG KA WAIAppellant

____________

Coram: The Honourable Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court

Date of Hearing: 12 May 1999

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 12 May 1999

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. It was common ground between the prosecution and the defence that the Appellant removed the fairing from somebody else's motorcycle and fixed it to his own motorcycle. He was charged with theft. His defence was that he believed that the motorcycle from which he removed the fairing had been abandoned.

2. The Magistrate, Colin Mackintosh Esq., considered the circumstances with care and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the Appellant did not really believe that that motorcycle had been abandoned. Accordingly he convicted the Appellant.

3. Now the Appellant appeals against conviction. I have considered what he has said, but I am satisfied that the Magistrate's conclusion is not one which it would be appropriate to disturb.

4. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

(V. Bokhary)
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

Representation:

Mr. Wong Ka-wai, Appellant in person

Mr. Man Tak-Ho Jonathan (of the Department of Justice) for the Respondent