LAU SZE-TING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000035/1976

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 1976

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

 

BETWEEN:
	LAU Sze-ting	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 27th January, 1976.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to dealing in adulterated liquor and being in possession of dutiable goods and was sentenced to a fine of $20,000 or six months' imprisonment on the first charge and $10,000 or three months' imprisonment on the second charge. Unfortunately, the appellant was unrepresented when he came before the magistrate and the magistrate was unaware of the true background of the case.

2. The adulterated liquor consisted of Chinese wine which was adulterated with methyl alcohol or pyridine. The quantity of adulterated liquor concerned was a very small amount.

3. The appellant runs a small store in part of his residence in a village in Yuen Long. The turnover of this store is only $2,000 per month and the profit is about $300 per month. The appellant has a Dealer's Licence to deal in non-European alcoholic liquor for a long time and bought his stock from a reputable firm with whom he has been dealing for many years. There is no suggestion here that he himself adulterated the liquor that was found in the store. Three bottles seized had a small quantity of methyl alcohol in their contents and 52 bottles had some pyridine mixed with their contents. Recently, there has been great publicity of a case where deaths seem to have been caused by the ingestion of methyl alcohol mixed with Chinese wine and I think this must have influenced the magistrate in imposing these very substantial fines.

4. Miss Kam, to whom I am greatly indebted, has produced a list of recent cases coming before the courts and, with one exception, no fine has been imposed in the neighbourhood of the fines which were imposed by the magistrate in this case. I think the fines were wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.

5. I therefore allow the appeal to the extent that the fine imposed on the first charge will be reduced to $250 and on the second charge to $100; that is to say, $33 in all. This is in line with the cases which have been tried in the Magistrates Courts over the last year.

 

 

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

A.M. Niamatullah (H.M. So & Co.) for appellant.

Miss Kam for crown.