Ho Yau Yin was holding a lighted cigarette on a restaurant premises when spotted by smoking inspectors. Ho was convicted and fined by the trial court. Ho appealed to the Court of Final Appeal, arguing that he was not smoking "indoors" because the part of the premise on which he was smoking was not enclosed enough to be considered "indoors. The Court found that, in order for a premise to be considered "indoors" under the law, the area must be enclosed at least 50% on each side and dismissed Ho's appeal. However, the Court refused to restore the conviction due to the length of time that the appeal was pending and the lack of sufficient evidence against Ho.
HKSAR v. Ho Yau Yin, [2010] Legal Reference System, Court of Final Appeal (2010).
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"It may be argued that the use of the phrase “on all sides” rather than “of all sides” tends to support the Judge’s conclusion. But this
gives insufficient weight to the 50% applying to the “total” area on all sides. It would have been better for para (b) to have used the phrase “of
all sides” rather than “on all sides”. But construing the phrase in the light of the context and purpose, there is no ambiguity in its meaning. Its natural and ordinary meaning is that for an area to be “indoor”, at least 50% of the total area of all sides must be enclosed, irrespective of how the enclosed area is distributed among the various sides."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Ho Yau Yin was holding a lighted cigarette on a restaurant premises when spotted by smoking inspectors. Ho was convicted and fined by the trial court. Ho appealed to the Court of Final Appeal, arguing that he was not smoking "indoors" because the part of the premise on which he was smoking was not enclosed enough to be considered "indoors. The Court found that, in order for a premise to be considered "indoors" under the law, the area must be enclosed at least 50% on each side and dismissed Ho's appeal. However, the Court refused to restore the conviction due to the length of time that the appeal was pending and the lack of sufficient evidence against Ho.