Chan Yuk-king v. The Queen

CACC000390/1977

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 3rd June, 1977.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was found guilty of keeping a common gaming house and appeals against that conviction.

2. The brief facts of this case were that the police raided an establishment and obviously had interrupted some gambling which was taking place there. The appellant warned persons in the establishment of the approach of the police.

3. Two points were taken on behalf of the appellant. One, before the police can raid a suspected gaming house, it is necessary for them to have an authorization issued under the Gambling Ordinance. In this case, there was such an authorization, but it was not produced to the Court. It would have been better had that been done but, in my view, the evidence clearly showed that an authorization had been issued and that evidence was not contradicted by the defence.

4. The second point taken was that there was no evidence of regular or habitual use of the premises for gambling. It is settled law that such evidence is necessary if a conviction for the offence of keeping a common gaming house is to be sustained. See The Attorney General v. Chan Man Kong ⁽¹⁾. A passage in that judgment was quoted with approval in the case of Ko Ping v. The Queen ⁽²⁾ It succinctly sets out the law and I will quote it again:-

"On these authorities I am of the opinion that, in any case, in which the evidence adduced to show that an accused person was keeper of a gaming house, is evidence that he conducted a betting business in such place, the Crown is obliged to show something in the nature of a regular or habitual user of such premises for that purpose."

5. In this case there was no evidence of habitual or regular user of the premises for gaming, the only evidence on which the Crown sought to rely was a statement in the evidence of the Inspector, where he said that he went to execute a gambling authorization "which had been obtained by me following observation on this store." In my view, that is not sufficient. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.

Representation:

Allman-Brown (H.H. Lau & Co.) for appellant.

Hodge for crown.

(1) (19670 H. K. L. R. 225

(2) Vriminal Appeal No. 586 of 1970.