HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1984

THE QUEEN v. TANG KWONG-KAN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
2519-EN-1984-06-19

THE QUEEN v. TANG KWONG-KAN

HTML content

CACC000275/1984

IN THE HIGH COURT

Criminal Appeal

No. 275 of 1984

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

and

TANG Kwong-kan

(Appellant)

________

Coram: Fuad, J.A. (Sitting as an additional Judge of the High Court)

Date of hearing: 19th June 1984

Date of judgement: 19th June 1984

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

 

Fuad, J.A. :

1. The appellant was convicted on the 27th April 1984 of spitting in a street c./by-law 8A of the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances By-laws by a magistrate and fined $$500, and now appeals against conviction and sentence.

2. He accepts that he did spit on the occasion charged, but his case is that there was nothing unhygienic about what he did, because his aim was accurate and his spit went into the gutter. There are no grounds for the appeal against conviction and the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

3. As regards sentence, Mr. Halley was not able to tell me what is the general level of penalties being imposed these days by magistrates for this offence, but the penalty provided by law is a maximum fine of $1,000 for a first offender. And the appellant is a first offender so he received a fine of one half the permitted maximum.

4. The appellant told me, as he told the magistrate, that he is out of work and has health problems, including trouble with his eyes. He told me also that he had been without a job for four years and was living on his savings. I have no reason to suppose that the fine imposed against the appellant is out of line with fines being imposed in such cases by other courts. Whatever the appellant himself may think, it is a nasty habit and in a place the size of Hong Kong, with so many people living in it, if everybody spat a real health hazard would be created.

5. However, it does seem to me that the sentence in this case was too severe having regard the fact that the appellant has been out of work for so long; is 58 years of age, and a first of fender. In these circumstances I gave him leave to appeal against sentence out of time, and I allow the appeal to the extent of reducing the fine to one of $50.

(K.T. Fuad )

Justice of Appeal

Representation: