YIU WING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000683/1981
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| 1981 No. 683 | |
| Criminal Appeal |
| BETWEEN | ||
| YIU WING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Liu, J. in Court
Date of Judgment: 27th August 1981
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This is an appeal against a $5,000 fine imposed by the learned Magistrate against the appellant limited company which had thitherto been of a clear record.
2. The facts which had attracted this $5,000 fine were singularly sympathetic in the sense that they relate to obtaining a machinery inspection certificate and the production of it. The machinery in respect of which a certificate ought to have been obtained and produced was, as conceded by the Crown, in good running order. Therefore, in effect no risk had ever been created for workmen or members of the public who happened to be close to or coming into contact with any part of this machinery.
3. The maximum statutory fine, I am told, was reduced some time in February 1981 from $10,000 to $5,000. There has been some discussion as to the proper yardstick for the power of punishment to be exercised in view of the statutorily lowered level. It is quite unnecessary for me to have that matter resolved in these proceedings. Regard must, at least, be paid to the legislative reduction of the maximum fine for the same offence. It cannot be said, as contended by Mr. Baum, that the offence committed by the limited company deserved the highest penalty permitted by law; nor in my view can it be said that the offence committed by the limited company in the circumstances of this case should fairly attract even half the maximum penalty. There was a breach, but it was an oversight in form, not in substance. The equipment was rented by the appellant who had little incentive not to have it properly maintained or regularly inspected.
4. Judging from the nature of the formal omission of this limited company, in my view a significant fine but on the lowest scale would suffice. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, a fine of $500 for neglect to secure and produce a certificate would be sufficient. I would allow the appeal, set aside the fine and substitute therefor a fine of $500. I order that the fine, if paid, be refunded to the limited company to the extent of $4,500.
| (B. Liu) | |
| Judge of the High Court |
Representation:
Mr. Rhoda, counsel for the Respondent.
Mr. Baum of Messrs. Edmond W.H. Chow & Co. for the Appellant.