Sheng Ming-huei and Another v. The Queen
|
CACC000762/1980 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 762 OF 1980 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Penlington, J. in Court Date of Judgment: 14th November 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The first appellant in this matter was convicted of being the manager or a person otherwise in charge or control of premises kept as a vice establishment. The second appellant was similarly convicted of assisting in the management of a vice establishment, both charges being under section 139(b) of the Crimes Ordinance, CAP 200. 2. Evidence was given, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate, that two Police Constables acting on instructions from Inspector Keith Dryden went to premises known as the Dor Sik Yee Entertainment Centre, Pik Lan Building, 41-49 Pitt Street, 2nd floor, on the 19th, 20th and 21st of May. 3. On each occasion when the constables went they were taken to a cubicle and a girl was then introduced. It is not clear from the evidence of the first Constable, Wong Chi-yung, whether he saw the same girl on each occasion, but I assume that was the case. He said that this girl told him that the charge was $3.50 for each 5 minutes "just chatting". He said she went on to say however that the charge would be double if he wanted to feel her chest, her private parts or if he wished to be masturbated. He told her that he was prepared to pay the double charge and after that he touched her breasts, her private parts and "games were played until 23.00 hours." When he told the girl he wanted to leave he was presented with a bill for $138, which he paid. 4. On the 20th of May he went to the same premises and the same thing happened as on the 19th. On the 21st he again went, this time with a marked $100 note given to him by Inspector Dryden. He said on this occasion he arrived at 21.45 hours and did the same thing as before until 22.30. Inspector Dryden then arrived with a police party and he went back to the Police Station with the appellants who had been arrested. He said he had not met the girl before the 19th of May. 5. Evidence was given by the other Police Constable P.W.3 Ma Hon Keung which was along similar lines. He said he also went to the Dor Sik Yee Friendship and Entertainment Centre on the 19th of May. His experience was very similar, the only difference in his evidence being was that he apparently suggested that the girl should masturbate him but clearly she was quite prepared to do so and she was also quite prepared to allow him to feel her breasts and private parts. He went back on the 20th and the same thing happened but with a different girl. On the 21st he also went with a marked note and said that the same thing happened as on the previous two nights. He didn't say who the girl was but it seems that there must have been at least two girls involved with this particular witness. 6. It is argued on behalf of the appellants of that this conduct is not sufficient to render the premises a vice establishment as defined in section 117(3) of the Crimes Ordinance. To come within a definition the section requires that the premises be either used wholly or mainly by two or more women for the purposes of prostitution or the premises are used wholly or mainly for or in connection with the organising or arranging of prostitution. I am quite satisfied that the evidence establishes beyond any doubt whatever that the premises fall within both of those subsections. It is argued that whatever was happening in the cubicles which the two constables were in, the other cubicles there could have been used for ordinary social chatting. I think that is being totally naive in the light of the evidence. The whole of the premises were in total darkness, apart from one light over the counter, and from the evidence given by the constables I am quite satisfied that such darkness was for only one purpose and that was prostitution in its legal meaning. There were clearly at least three women involved in the conduct described by the two constables though the records seized seem to indicate there were more than that number present. 7. It was argued that the conduct complained of only when on while the Constables were there. I am satisfied that prostitution was available at all times to anybody who came in and was prepared to pay the price. 8. On behalf of the second appellant it was also argued that as he was just the cashier in the premises he was not assisting in the management. I was referred to the cases of Gorman v. Standen (1963) 3 AER 627 and also Abbott v. Smith (1964) 3 AER 762. These cases seem to establish that to assist in the management of such premises there has to be something more than simply being employed there. If, for instance, a person was only working in the premises as a cleaner it would seem he is not assisting in the management thereof. In this case the second appellant was seated behind a clock counter which was the only part of the premises which was lit. It is not in dispute that he was there as cashier receiving the money paid by the various customers. On the counter in front of him were found the business records of the establishment and the Magistrate inferred from the circumstances that the second appellant had control of these records. That seems to be a perfectly legitimate inference. The Magistrate said that he was satisfied that the second appellant had some control over the takings of the business and that this constituted assisting in the management of the premises. I think he was perfectly right to draw that inference and the appeal of the second appellant on this ground is also dismissed.
Representation: Mr. Thomas P.S. Iu instructed by Y.K. Poon & Co. for all appellants Miss Crebbin for Crown |