Tsui Sai-heung v. The Queen

CACC000138/1978

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 18th March, 1978.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to obstruction contrary to section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance. He was fined $100 and an order was made confiscating the exhibits which consisted of the equipment used for running a stall for selling sugar-cane juice, which he is said to have left in a certain public place.

2. I must confess that this case somewhat baffles me. Originally, the appellant was charged with hawking without a licence. He pleaded not guilty to that but the charge was amended to one of obstruction to which he promptly pleaded guilty. The particulars of the offence are that he left certain equipment which "may have obstructed persons using" a certain public place. But the facts on which the Crown relied do not suggest that there was any obstruction. In his statement of findings the magistrate states:-

"The evidence was that on the 28th December last at about 5.30 p.m. Station Sergeant LI Ying was in Hip Wo Street near Tung Yan Street where he saw several hawkers stalls. His approach was noted and the persons in charge of the stalls ran away. The Station Sergeant succeeded in stopping a young boy who was pushing a cart on which there were various items of equipment connected with the sale of sugar cane juice. The officer had a brief conversation with the little boy before the boy left the scene. As the Station Sergeant was about to take possession of the cart and the contents the appellant appeared and asked if he could take his things away. During the conversation the appellant admitted that when he saw the officer approach he ran away to avoid apprehension. Also the appellant admitted he had no licence to sell sugar cane juice."

3. It does not seem to me that a young boy pushing a cart can be considered causing an obstruction. The boy was stopped by a police officer and it is not, I think, suggested that it was at that moment of time that the offence was committed. It would appear to me that what went wrong here was that the original charge was not proceeded with. Be that as it may, and despite the fact that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of obstruction I will give him leave to appeal against conviction. I will set aside the conviction and quash the sentence. The fine, if paid, must be returned by the police and the exhibits which were confiscated before the Magistrates Court must also be returned to him.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Dick for the Crown/Respondent.