12. Loitering (Section 160 Crimes Ordinance)

12. Loitering (Section 160 Crimes Ordinance)

Section 160 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) specifies three situations in which a person loitering in a public place or common parts of a building commits an offence:

• Loitering with the intent to commit an arrestable offence, which may attract a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 6 months (section 160(1)).
• Loitering and wilfully obstructing any person using the aforementioned place or common parts, which may attract a sentence of imprisonment 6 months (section 160(2)).
• Loitering and causing, whether by his own presence alone or that of others, any person reasonably to be concerned for his safety or well-being, which may attract a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years (section 160(3)).

“Public place”

Public place means (section 3 Interpretation and General Clause Ordinance):

1. any public street or pier, or any public garden; and
2. any theatre, place of public entertainment of any kind, or other place of general resort, admission to which is obtained by payment or to which the public have or permitted access.

“Arrestable offence”

Arrestable offence means an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person may under or by virtue of any law be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months, and an attempt to commit any such offence. (section 3 Interpretation and General Clause Ordinance)

“Loiter”

Loitering means “idling, lingering or hanging about”. Driving around in a motorcar or sitting in a stationary may amount to loitering as may tailing or surveying others by motor vehicle or on foot.

The prosecution only has to prove that the defendant loitered deliberately, and this caused another person reasonably to be concerned for his safety or well-being. The loitering does not need to have been done with the intention of causing concern.

“Well-being”

The prosecution must prove that the person in question did become concerned for his safety or well-being because of the defendant’s loitering and that a person with a sound and robust mind would be so concerned because of the defendant’s loitering (HKSAR v Chan Man Chung [2004] 1 HKLRD 641).