Lin Yu-tsai and Others v. The Queen

CACC000631/1981

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 631 OF 1981

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

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

Coram: Penlington, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 11th August, 1981.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This prosecution follows several visits made by Police Officers to premises at 9-10 Tak Hing Street known as the Golden Beauty Restaurant. It is not in dispute that the 1st defendant is the licensee of the premises, the 2nd defendant (her husband) is the manager, and the other defendants are employees, the 3rd and 4th defendants being ushers, the 5th and 6th the time calculator and cashier.

2. Evidence was given by a police officer who visited the premises on the 22nd and on 30th November 1980 acting as a customer. He was introduced to a girl - after being given a choice of three - and she asked if he wished to pay for a 'double hour'. He agreed to do so and on each occasion was then allowed to fondle the girl's breasts and private parts while she did the same to his. He paid $102 on the first occasion (1½ hrs) and $34 on the second (1½ hr).

3. On the 30th November, while the police officer was still there, W.I.P. Wong Mui-kit conducted a raid of the premises. She found them to be dimly lit at the reception area but the rest of it was in darkness. There were some 5 couples there sitting in booths. There were very limited cooking facilities plus some wine, beer, soft drinks, crisps and nuts. She talked to the 3rd defendant and asked to see a senior member of the staff. The 2nd defendant then came and said he was the manager. She then warned both of them that indecent acts were being committed on the premises and to see that such activity ceased. They agreed to do so. The following day she interviewed the 1st defendant and warned her also. The 1st defendant signed W.I.P. Wong's notebook to acknowledge the warning.

4. Late on the 3rd January 1981 two other police officers went to the premises and again acted as customers. They were also asked to pay "double pay" for better service and when they agreed to do so, similar acts of indecency took place between them and the girls who had been brought to their booth. All defendants were present on this occasion.

5. I can see no evidence here which distinguishes this case from C.A. 762/1980. The magistrate did look at the evidence against each defendant and has found, I think quite rightly, that each played a part in the running of this establishment. That evidence was that given by the police officers plus the defendants' statements which were admitted without challenge.

6. The magistrate was satisfied, again I think quite rightly, that the premises were used wholly or mainly for prostitution.

7. The fact that crisps and coca-cola was served does not in my view detract from what was clearly the main activity carried on in the premises. None of the police officers was offered any other form of refreshment - and it seems he could not have seen it if it was.

8. The 2nd and 3rd defendants had been warned on the 30th November 1980 and the 1st defendant on the 1st December about what was going on in the premises. The other defendants were actively engaged as ushers or in calculating the time each customer spent with a girl and collecting the money. Each must have realised what was going on in the premises. In my view if a person runs or is employed in an establishment where in almost total darkness girls are brought for customers who are then asked to pay quite substantial sums for the girls' company, conduct as described by the police officers who posed as customers is inevitable and all the defendants were well aware of it. What else would the customers be expected to pay "double time" for - apart from actual intercourse and even that was offered though apparently not on those premises.

9. I am satisfied that the magistrate was perfectly aware of where the burden of proof lay, he accepted the prosecution witnesses as being truthful and he was satisfied of each defendant guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There was in my views ample evidence on which he could come to that conclusion.

10. There was a further ground of appeal, that the prosecution must show the presence of two or more women to found a charge under Section 117(3)(a) or (b) of the Crimes Ordinance. That is only the case with subsection 3(a). These charges were brought under s. 3(b).

11. The appeals are all dismissed.

Representation:

Miss Crabtree, Counsel for Respondent.

Mr. J.M. Midgley of Haldane Midgley & Co. for Appellants.