Tse Wai Piu and Another v. Attorney General
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 189/1984 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 April 1984.
1. The two appellants who are husband and wife were jointly charged with Madam Chan Shu-yun with fighting in a public place contrary to Section 25 of the Public Order Ordinance Cap. 245. The facts show that it was a relatively minor dispute between neighbours. The two appellants pleaded guilty to the charge before a magistrate Mr. I.M. Griffiths at San Po Kong Magistrates Court on the lst March 1984. Each appellant was fined $100. Madam Chan pleaded not guilty, and her trial was heard by another
|
HCMA000189/1984
BETWEEN:-
_________ Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jones in Court. Date of hearing: 27 April 1984 Date of delivery of judgment: 27 April 1984 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ 1. The two appellants who are husband and wife were jointly charged with Madam Chan Shu-yun with fighting in a public place contrary to Section 25 of the Public Order Ordinance Cap. 245. The facts show that it was a relatively minor dispute between neighbours. The two appellants pleaded guilty to the charge before a magistrate Mr. I.M. Griffiths at San Po Kong Magistrates Court on the lst March 1984. Each appellant was fined $100. Madam Chan pleaded not guilty, and her trial was heard by another magistrate Mr. T. Davis on the 13th March 1984 when the appellants gave evidence for the prosecution. The case against Madam Chan was dismissed. However, the learned magistrate bound over Madam Chan and the appellants in the sum of $1,000 for 2 years to keep the peace pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361. The appellants appeal against this order. 2. In his statement of findings the magistrate said he bound over the appellants because they had given evidence as witnesses in the case. 3. The Justices of the Peace Act 1361 prescribes for a binding over order to be made where there is a likelihood that there will be a future breach of the peace. There was no evidence before the magistrate to this effect nor were the appellants given an opportunity to argue against such an order being made see R v. Aubrey-Fletcher Ex parte Thompson (1969) 2 all E.R. 846. 4. The order was not justified with the result that it will be quashed.
Representation: Appellants in person. Mr. A.A. Bruce (Legal Department) for Respondent. |