TSANG HOI LUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

CACC000500/1979

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1979 No. 500

BETWEEN
	TSANG HOI LUNG	Appellants
	TAM TSE KIN
	CHAN KI FUNG
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Trainor, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 3 July 1979

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The three appellants were convicted of publishing objectional articles. The first and second appellants were each fined $500 and the third was fined $1,000. Against that conviction the 1st and 3rd appellants appeal and the 2nd appellant appeals against conviction and sentence. So far as the conviction is concerned, having read the record and heard what the appellants had to say, I have not the least doubt that this was a proper conviction. As to the appeal against the sentence of the 2nd appellant, I was strongly tempted to increase the penalty and had the other two appealed against sentence that is what I might have done. However, as the 2nd appellant is certainly not the prime mover I do not intend to interfere with the penalties. I therefore dismiss the appeals against the convictions and sentence.

2. There is, however, one matter of importance to which I feel I ought to refer. The accused were charged in the Court below with publishing a number of magazines to the total of 139. At the hearing the prosecution witness produced 19 copies and said that the remaining 120 were identical to those produced in Court. The 19 were accepted as exhibits but the 120 remaining were not, nor were they in Court; they were, I have been given to understand, back in the police station. That procedure was entirely incorrect ...(illegible) . All matters the subject of the prosecution should have been produced in Court and available to the Court though it might only be necessary for the learned magistrate to examine such of them as he considered necessary to reach a conclusion if he accepted from the evidence that the others were identical copies.

3. On conviction it was ordered that the 139 magazines be confiscated. The Court had no jurisdiction over those documents that were not produced, and was not empowered to make an order for the confiscation of the 120. That portion of the decision of the Court below which ordered the confiscation of those 120 magazines will be set aside; the 19 produced as exhibits will, of course, be confiscated.

(J.P. Trainor, J.)

 

Representation:

Appellants in person.

Mr. Aldereice, c.c. for Crown.