Ma Yin Ping and Another v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 434/1979 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 June 1979.
1. This is an appeal by two women appellants against their conviction of conducting and aiding and abetting the conduct of an unlicensed Massage Establishment respectively by a Magistrate sitting at Western Magistracy.
|
CACC000434/1979
Coram: Zimmern, J. Date of Judgment: 6 June 1979 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal by two women appellants against their conviction of conducting and aiding and abetting the conduct of an unlicensed Massage Establishment respectively by a Magistrate sitting at Western Magistracy. 2. The facts are simple. A police officer in plain clothes was instructed in the course of his duty on the afternoon of the 27th December 1978 to go to the premises of the Blue Point Beauty Parlour situate on the 2nd floor of 78 Queen's Road Central. There was nothing clandestine about this place. Upon entry he found himself in a large room well carpeted with six barber's chairs on each side and with the usual mirrors common to hairdressing saloons. He was attended by the 2nd Appellant who took off his jacket and led him to one of the chairs. He was told to take off his shoes. She then put his chair on to a recumbent position and after putting a blanket over his knees proceeded to massage his face, a thigh and after a break his other thigh then shoulders. This officer told the Court that he saw from the mirror several other men treated the same way. The police raided the premises and all the women were arrested and charged. The first Appellant admitted she was running the Blue Point Beauty Parlour. Only she and the 2nd Appellant were convicted. 3. The grounds of appeal are:
Section 4 of the Miscellaneous Licences Ordinance reads:
4. "Massage Establishment" is included in the Schedule and is defined so far as is relevant to this Case as "any premises used for the reception of persons requiring massage except the premises of a hairdresser where face or scalp massage is administered in his shop or saloon in full view of all customers resorting thereto". 5. On the totality of the evidence before the learned magistrate he found that that the premises were not used as a hairdressing saloon or barber shop but that it was used as a "Massage Establishment". He further accepted that while there must be some element of "habitual" or "continued" use of the premises as a Massage Establishment before the offences could be proved he found that it was not necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of previous visits or observations. 6. Counsel for the appellants finding himself in difficulties on the finding of facts by the learned magistrate tried to pursuade me to give a purposeful construction to the meaning of Massage Establishment as defined in the Ordinance. The legislature never intended such an establishment as the Blue Point Beauty Parlour to be so caught. It seems to me the wording of section 4 and the definition of Massage Establishment is clear, unambiguous and with no disrespect void of any legal jargon and no aid to construction is required. The 1st Appellant was clearly at the premises conducting a business used for the reception of persons requiring massage without a licence and the 2nd Appellant was aiding and abetting. If they feel aggrieved because the business conducted was really aboveboard let me say the Court is not the place to test the degree of respectability of a Massage Establishment. That is the function of the Licensing Authority when an application is made. 7. The appeals are dismissed. Representation: F. Eddis (Lau, Wong & Chan) for Appellants. P. Duncan for Crown. |