HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1989

THE QUEEN v. FANDASY CO LTD

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
23869-EN-1990-02-28

THE QUEEN v. FANDASY CO LTD

HTML content

HCMA001344/1989

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1344 OF 1989

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

BETWEEN

The Queen

Respondent

 

AND

 

Fandasy Co. Limited

Appellant

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

Coram: Hon. Ryan J. in Court

Date of hearing: 28 February 1990

Date of judgment: 28 February 1990

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was convicted after trial before C.B. Chan on three summons of selling a pharmaceutical product which had not been registered. The appellant now appeals against conviction and sentence.

2. The Magistrate imposed the maximum fine of $2,500 in respect of each charge.

3. The defence at trial was that the product Foltene did not come within the definition of a pharmaceutical product. In a very full and reasoned Statement of Findings the Magistrate found that it did. I can find no reason to disagree with this finding and the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

4. The appellant firm had a clear record and the facts showed a history of attempts through various government departments to get the product registered. It is true that the company sold the product before the processes were completed but I do consider the imposition of the maximum fine on each of the three summonses to be excessive - two of the sales were in fact on the same day.

5. I allow the appeal against sentence to the extent that the fines are reduced to $1,000 on each summons.

(T.J. Ryan)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr P. O'Brien, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant, Mr Lam Shiu-sum, Eugene, authorised representative of Fandasy Co. Ltd., present in Court