POON WAN WAH v. THE QUEEN

CACC000713/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 713 OF 1972

-----------------

BETWEEN
	POON WAN WAH	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 27th November, 1972.

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was convicted on her own admission of an offence of obstructing members of the public by causing six wooden boxes to be left in a public place. In fact these six wooden boxes represented part of a hawker's "stall". As I understand the position, there was formerly a large conglomeration of hawkers' stalls in the Tsz Wan Shan Resettlement Area. The Resettlement Department decided that this had to be cleared and in due course it was cleared. Subsequently the Appellant recommenced her hawking business in the cleared area. She and her husband had been allocated two stalls in a resite area provided for those who had been cleared, but they did not make use of those two stalls and preferred to start business back where they had been before. In this way they sought to do better business than their competitors who were compelled to obey the law, while they themselves were in breach of the law.

2. The learned magistrate dealt with the matter at considerable length and with great care and he came to the conclusion that a fine of $400 was appropriate. He recognised that this sort of action by persons who had been cleared from hawker areas had to be dealt with firmly and he is obviously right.

3. In my view this sentence was a proper sentence. The Appellant was deliberately breaking the law. She had no real excuse and she must pay the penalty. I will only add one or two observations. The learned magistrate said that for the further information of the court he was attaching various documents including three sets of photographs. These were not in fact among the papers put before me and when I asked what had happened to these documents certain documents were placed before me as being the ones referred to. In fact some of these photographs were not of the area concerned and are indeed highly prejudicial. I, therefore, would emphasise that when, upon a plea of guilty, in a case like this it is desired to put photographs in evidence great care should be taken to ensure that the exhibits are marked as exhibits after they have either been formally proved or admitted as being representative of what they purport to show.

4. The Appellant, having been fined $400, failed to pay. She was eventually arrested and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment in default of payment. Subsequently, although no note of these proceedings appears in my record, she applied for bail pending appeal and this was granted. The learned magistrate said that time to pay was not asked for. The Appellant has told me that she was offered time to pay, the proposal being that she pay by two instalments of $200. Although I have dismissed the appeal I would be disposed to hear an application for payment of the fine by instalments. [After further argument]. I have heard the Appellant at great length on the matter of payment by instalments. She has refused to make any offer of payment. I have agreed that I would make an order for payment by instalments of $100 a month (due allowance being made for the five days she has already served) until the total payment has been made. She has declined to accept that proposal and the appeal stands dismissed.

 

27th November, 1972.

 

Representation: