Ko Ping Shum and Another v. The Queen

CACC000636/1980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 636 OF 1980.

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

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

Coram: O'Connor, J.

Date of Judgment: 20th September, 1980.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellants were charged seperately with loitering contrary to section 160(1) of the Crimes Ordinance Cap.200. They appeal against their convictions. Crown counsel, quite properly, states he is unable to support the convictions.

2. The offence consists in loitering in a public place and failing to give a satisfactory account of oneself and a satisfactory explanation for ones presence there. The particulars of offence, in respect of these appellants, alleged inability to give satisfactory accounts and explanations rather than failure to do so. The charges were therefore defective, though not fatally so.

3. There was evidence that the second appellant was asked for and gave an explanation of his presence. There is no finding by the learned magistrate in respect thereof. There was no evidence as to whether the first appellant was either asked for or gave or failed to give an explanation or account. The learned magistrate in his findings of fact has made no reference at all to the second limb of the charges, that is to the failure to give satisfactory accounts and explanations. He has proceeded on the basis that the offence consists of loitering simpliciter. Accordingly I allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions and sentences.

Representation:

Pang Kin-kee (D.L.A.) for both appellants.

E.H.Martin, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown/respondent.