The Queen v. Chong Hung Chao (A2) and Others

HCMA000659/1988

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 659 OF 1988

___________

BETWEEN

____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Barnes in Court

Date of Hearing: 22nd September, 1988

Date of Judgment: 11th October, 1988

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The four Appellants were convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court on a joint charge of assisting in the management of a vice establishment contrary to s. 139 of the Crimes Ordinance (''the Ordinance"). The charge alleged that the offence was committed on 28th December, 1987 at Lai Wah Ballroom on the first floor of a building in Wanchai.

2. The evidence was that although the premises were licensed as a public dance hall the dance floor was not maintained in a state fit for dencing. There were signs at the entrance advertising the establishment as "Home of Hot Dance:" and claiming to have "Beautiful Girls" inside. An undercover police officer visited the premises at about 11.25 P.M. on 6th December. He was led to a booth in the dimly lit premises by A6 who almost immediately introduced him to a female .After A6 departed she imdulged in lewd conduct with the officer on leaving the officer was presented with a bill for $79which he paid to as During his stay he was not invited to cake a drink or wefreshments .he did not dance nor did he see anyone else dancing or being served with food or drink

3. On 28th the officer went again accompanied by another under cover officer .On this occasion A3 escorted both to separate booths. A3 asked each officer in turn if he was familiar with any hostess. Although each said he was not the first officer was supplied with the same girl he had been introduced to on the 6th. The second officer was introduced to another girl by A3. After the first officer agreed to pay for lewd conduct his girl went to the second officer's booth and had a short conversation with the girl to whom he had been introduced .A2 then came to the first officer and asked for $129 which he paid. The girl with him then suggested that he give A2 a $10 tip and he complied. A2 then went to the second officer's booth and asked for 129. He paid and then added a $10 tip after the girl with him suggested that he should do so. Each girl then engaged in lewd conduct with her companion.

4. When the officers left the premises they went to meet their inspector. He then led a police raid on the premises .During the raid police officers found tissue paper under some of the chairs .Some of the tissues when subsequently analysed by the Government Chemist were customers and at least 10 postesses on the premises at the time of the raid.

5. No evidence was given by or on behalf of any of the Appellants or their fellow defendants at the trial.

6. Mr Sceats, on behalf of A3, A4 and A5 (A3 is now unrepresented) relies on two main grounds of appeal: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the premises were a vice establishment; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that any Appellant had knowledge of the nature of the business being conducted on the premises.

7. The effect of s.l17 of the Ordinance is that once it is proved that premises have been used wholly or mainly by two or more women for the purposes of prostitution the premises are, by definition, a vice establishment. The uncontradicted evidence of what occurred on 28th December was sufficient to prove that element of the charge.

8. As to the second ground, Mr, Sceats points to the evidence that although A1 collected the fee there was no evidence that he was present or could have heard anything said between the officer and the girl and no evidence that he could have seen any lewd conduct. As to A2 there was no evidence as to what accounts were kept and no employee records were produced to show what the hostesses were being paid. The premises being licensed as a public dance hall where hostesses-in waiting are a "legitimate facility", there was nothing to alert an usher or cashier that lewd behaviour was taking place if (say) one or two hostesses were engaged in "frolics of their own".

9. The evidence before the learned magistrate negated any suggestion that the hostesses in this case were acting otherwise than in accordance with the business being conducted on the premises. All money paid by customers was paid to other employees of the establishment and the marked money handed over on 28th December was subsequently found in the cashier's drawer. There was no evidence that the premises were being used for any other purpose than the purpose disclosed to the undercover officers. In the circumstances, no usher or cashier could have believed, even on the briefest acquaintance with the establishment, that it was other than a vice establishment. There is no merit in this ground.

10. A3, who appeared in person, relied on matters not supported by any evidence before the learned magistrate. On the evidence the learned magistrate could not reasonably have doubted that he had full knowledge of the nature of the business being done on the premises.

11. The appeal in respect of each Appellant is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. S. P. Kelly, C.C. for the Crown.

Mr. Barry A. Sceats (Hampton, Winter & Glynn) for 3 Appellants: A2, A4 & A6.

The Appellant: CHENG Chong Kong (A3) in person.