R. v. Ting Fung Yee

HCMA001523/1996

1996, NO. MA 1523

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL

_______________

_______________

Coram: Hon Sears, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 14 May 1997

Date of judgment: 14 May 1997

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. This is an unusual case involving a lady who was the landlady of some caged dwellings. One of the elderly people living there had lost his cheque book. So he called up the police station and a plainclothed police officer went up. It is surprising that he was not in uniform but he said he had a clip-on warrant card.

2. The appellant had her own separate room although there was a common area. He knocked on the window and said he was a police officer and asked her to produce her identification. In my judgment, he had no authority to ask her to produce her identity card unless he was lawfully inside her premises. At that moment, she had not invited him in, he had no search warrant. The bulk of citizens no doubt would have acquiesced, but unfortunately, this lady is a rather strong character and she refused. He then wanted to know the identity of all the occupants. Again, he knocked on the window and said he wanted her identity card. She opened the window and refused to produce it. He said if she did not produce it, she was going to be charged with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. In my judgment, that was unlawful. He was not entitled to do that. As I said, many people no doubt would have just given in, but this lady was resolute and decided not to. She said that he did not even say who he was. She then shouted out "help, help, robbery" because she thought that she was going to get robbed.

3. It was all a chapter of confusion and misunderstanding. The police officer no doubt did not like her attitude because she was not being compliant and subsequently arrested her. This seems to me to be a storm in a tea-cup. This lady who is a person of good character and obviously is prepared to defend her rights should not have been prosecuted. On any view, there was a substantial element of doubt in the case. The appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed.

Representation:

Mr W.S. Cheung, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant in person - present