Cheung Chi-king v. The Queen

CACC000403/1977

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins, J.A. and Leonard, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th July, 1977.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was found guilty of disorderly conduct in a public place contrary to section 13(2) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245. The facts are simple.

2. The appellant was a driver of a mini-bus and he double parked it in a certain street causing a traffic jam. A police constable on duty ordered him to move on and gave him a fixed penalty ticket for being illegally parked. The appellant moved a short way and illegally parked a second time. A row developed between the appellant and the police constable and the appellant shouted to his colleagues, who were drivers of other minibuses in the vicinity, to come to his assistance. A considerable crowd of persons gathered round the mini-bus and the constable and a disturbance took place.

3. The only question for decision is whether the appellant was charged under the correct section of the law. Section 13(2) of the Public Order Ordinance reads as follows:-

"Any person who behaves in a noisy or disorderly manner, or uses, or distributes or displays any writing containing, threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and to imprisonment for twelve months."

It is part of a section contained in Part 111 of the Public Order Ordinance which is entitled "Control of Public Meetings and Processions." Subsection (1) of section 13 is concerned with disorder at public gatherings and "public gathering" is defined in the Ordinance to mean "a public meeting, a public procession and any other meeting, gathering or assembly of ten or more persons in a public place." There are further definitions in the Ordinance which make it clear that section 13(1) is concerned with meetings which are held in public. That subsection would not apply to a crowd in a public street of the nature described in this case. However, section 13(2) is perfectly clear and presents no ambiguity. We think, therefore, it was not wrong to charge the appellant in this case under that subsection and that that subsection does cover the facts of the present case.

4. We therefore dismiss the appeal against conviction. The appellant was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment and fined $50. This was passed on the 23rd March, 1977. We gave leave to the appellant to appeal against his sentence out of time and allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a sentence of three months' imprisonment suspended for eighteen months.

Representation:

Miss E. Toh (Haldane & Co.) for appellant.

Little for crown.