Read the full judgment text of CACC 000162/1983 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The first appellant, MAK Tat-kue, was charged with operating a gambling establishment, contrary to section 5(a) of the Gambling Ordinance Cap. 148. The second and third appellants were charged with assisting in the management of a gambling establishment, contrary to section 5(c) of the same Ordinance. Each was convicted and each now appeals against his conviction.