HKSAR v. Yeung Kwok Wai Raymond

Read the full judgment text of HCMA 144/2005 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 March 2005.

1. This Appellant appeals against his conviction after trial before D J Dufton, Esq. in the Magistrate’s Court at Kwun Tong on three charges under the Copyright Ordinance, Chapter 528.

Case No.HCMA 144/2005
Court
High Court CFI
Date15 Mar 2005
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMA 144/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 7107 OF 2004)

____________

BETWEEN

  HKSAR Respondent
  and  
  YEUNG KWOK WAI, RAYMOND Appellant

____________

Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court

Date of Hearing: 15 March 2005

Date of Judgment: 15 March 2005

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.This Appellant appeals against his conviction after trial before D J Dufton, Esq. in the Magistrate’s Court at Kwun Tong on three charges under the Copyright Ordinance, Chapter 528.

2.Charge one was of possession for the purpose of trade or business of infringing copies of copyright works, namely books, with a view to committing acts infringing the copyright without the licence of the copyright owners.  Charge two was of making for sale or hire infringing copies of those copyright works without the licence of the copyright owners.  Charge three was of possession of an article, namely a photocopying machine, knowing that it was being used to make those infringing copies for the purpose of business.

3.These charges were all based on the allegation, which the Magistrate found proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the Appellant was actively operating a business in which books were photocopied and the photocopies were sold, all of this being done well knowing that the copyright in the books were being infringed.

4.There was evidence on which the Magistrate could find that allegation proved beyond reasonable doubt, and there is nothing to suggest that he erred in how he went about finding is so proved.

5.That being so, I see no basis on which these convictions can be disturbed.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

  (V. Bokhary)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Isaac Tam, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant in Person