Tang Chi Lun v Hksar

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date25 Apr 2006
Citation[2006] 2 HKLRD 583; (2006) 9 HKCFAR 299
Judgement NumberFAMC9/2006
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)
FAMC000009/2006 TANG CHI LUN v. HKSAR

FAMC No. 9 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 9 OF 2006 (Criminal)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM

hcma No. 645 of 2005)

______________________

Between:
TANG CHI LUN Applicant
and
HKSAR Respondent

_______________________

Appeal Committee : Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing : 25 April 2006

Date of Determination : 25 April 2006

____________________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

____________________________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1. The applicant was charged with an offence under s 20(c) of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228. This provides that any person who persistently makes telephone calls without reasonable cause and for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to any other person, commits an offence punishable by a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for two months.

2. The facts were not in dispute. The defendant, a clerk in the Highways Department, had formed a dislike for Ms Cheung Tak Mei under whom he had once worked. He decided to cause her annoyance by repeatedly misusing a telephone system set up by the Immigration Department as part of its exercise of replacing ID Cards with new “Smart” ID Cards. To do this, he dialled a phone number, giving access to an interactive voice response system for making appointments for replacing ID cards. He entered false ID Card numbers and then entered Ms Cheung’s telephone number as the number to which a fax confirmation should be sent. Ms Cheung would therefore receive such fax signals on her telephone. When the calls were diverted to a fax machine, it was revealed that they were purported notifications of appointments for replacing ID Cards. The applicant did this partly to lessen the workload of his girlfriend, who was employed in the ID Card replacement exercise, so that she would have more free time to chat with him on the phone. In doing so, on some occasions, he would make phone calls without relaying a fax signal to Ms Cheung. But where the signal was sent to Ms Cheung, he plainly also intended to annoy or inconvenience her by his acts.

3. The applicant’s main argument, which failed before the magistrate and before Pang J, is that the offence was not made out since he...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT