SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(HK)(HKCFA) 36

新聞摘要 (英文版)

新聞摘要 (中文版)

FACC No. 2 of 2023

[2023] HKCFA 12

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2023 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMA NO. 236 OF 2021)

_______________________

BETWEEN

HKSAR Respondent
and
CHOY YUK LING (蔡玉玲) Appellant

_______________________

Before: Chief Justice Cheung, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Gummow NPJ
Date of Hearing: 3 May 2023
Date of Judgment: 5 June 2023

_______________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

Chief Justice Cheung:

1. I agree with the judgment of Mr Justice Fok PJ.

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

2. I agree with the judgment of Mr Justice Fok PJ.

Mr Justice Fok PJ:

A. Introduction

3. The appellant was convicted, on 22 April 2021, of two counts of knowingly making a false statement in a material particular for the purpose of obtaining a certificate under the Road Traffic Ordinance ( Cap. 374 ) (“the RTO”), contrary to s.111(3)(a) of the RTO, and fined $3,000 on each count. [1] Her appeal to the Court of First Instance was dismissed and her conviction upheld on 7 November 2022. [2] With leave of the Appeal Committee, [3] the appellant appeals against her conviction to this Court. The issues arising for determination in this appeal are identified in Section A.5 below.

A.1 The facts

4. The appellant is a journalist and was, at the material time, a contracted service provider for Radio Television Hong Kong (“RTHK”). On 17 May 2020 and 10 June 2020, the appellant made an online application for, and obtained, the Certificate of Particulars of Vehicle of a private car with the registration number LV755 for the dates 21 July 2019 and 10 June 2020. The process of application by which the appellant obtained the Certificate of Particulars of Vehicle on the two occasions in question, which is of central importance to this appeal, is described in greater detail in Section A.2 below.

5. The car, LV755, was purchased in 2017 by a Mr But Yu Sang (PW1), who registered a company called Conred Industries Limited as the owner of the vehicle and gave the registered address of another company, called Prosperous Property Development, in Tai Po as the registered address of the vehicle.

6. Having obtained the Certificate of Particulars of Vehicle for LV755 for the two dates concerned, the appellant and another RTHK reporter went to the Tai Po address of Prosperous Property Development on 22 June 2020. The appellant presented her RTHK press card and told a member of its staff (PW2) that she would like to interview someone from Conred Industries Limited. PW2 said he did not know that company and the appellant left her contact details and departed. On 23 June 2020, PW2 provided PW1 with the appellant’s contact number and PW1 phoned her. The appellant explained she was a reporter with RTHK and that a member of the public had photographed LV755 in Yuen Long on 21 July 2019. Between 29 June 2020 and 6 July 2020, the appellant called PW1 several times to interview him in respect of the vehicle and asked him whether he had








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top