The Attorney General v. Leung Mei-hing @ Leung and Others

CAAR000022/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 22 OF 1975

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J. and McMullin, J.

Date of Judgment: 26th September, 1975.

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

DECISION

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

1. The first respondent pleaded guilty to the following offences: (a) carrying on the management of an unregistered clinic; (c) practising medicine without registration; (d) possession of Part I Poisons, i.e. possession of Poisons listed in Part I of the Schedule to the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance; and (e) possession of antibiotics. She was fined $500 on charges (a) and (c) and $400 on charges (d) and (e), making a total of $1,800.

2. The second and third respondents pleaded guilty to one charge, i.e. of taking part in the management of an unregistered clinic and were sentenced to a fine of $250 each.

3. The first respondent has no medical qualifications or experience of medical practice. When the premises in which her unlicensed clinic was being carried on were raided, a large quantity of Part I poisons and antibiotics was found. It was obvious that at that time the clinic dealt with a substantial number of patients. The raid on the first respondent's clinic occurred on April 23rd, 1975. Since when the clinic has been dismantled and the premises sold.

4. On the 2nd April, 1975, the first respondent pleaded guilty to carrying on the management of an unregistered clinic, practising medicine without registration and being in possession of antibiotics and Part I poisons. On that occasion, she was fined $2,200. In the same case, the second and third respondents pleaded guilty to taking Part in the management of the unregistered clinic and were each fined $250.

5. We have no hesitation in saying that the sentences passed on the present occasion were wrong in principle and totally inadequate. The respondents are stated to have removed the signs outside the clinic after their first conviction on April 2nd but the clinic continued to function until it was finally closed down on April 23rd. The quantity of Part I poisons and antibiotics was considerable and the clinic was run in a highly professional manner. Members of the public, unless they made inquiries, would be totally unaware that the first respondent lacked the barest of medical qualifications. It was urged on behalf of the first respondent that she only continued to run her clinic because she had received a demand for back taxes amounting to a large sum and her old patients came to her for further treatment. We do not think there is anything in these two points.

6. The truth is that the first respondent totally ignored the warning that she had been given by being fined on the first occasion for conduct which she must have known was illegal. In the event, we think that the first respondent must be imprisoned for a period of three months on charge (a), that is carrying on the management of an unregistered clinic and the orders regarding the fines will stand.

7. The second respondent is the brother of the first respondent. He is a man of 27 and apart from his previous conviction, which is mentioned above, has a clear record. According to his own account, he acted as an assistant to his sister for several months. He must have been aware, from having been fined on the first occasion, that his conduct was against the law and we order that he be sentenced to one month's imprisonment under charge (b), which is taking part in the management of an unregistered clinic, in addition to the fine already imposed upon him.

8. The third respondent is a young girl of 20, who is a relative of the first and second respondents. We do not think that we should make an order that she be imprisoned in this case but, again, she must have been fully aware from her first fine of $250 that she was breaking the law by continuing to take part in the management of the clinic. We therefore order that her fine be increased from $250 to $500 and if that fine is not paid within one month, she is to be sentenced to one month's imprisonment in default.

Representation:

Penlington for appellant

Patrick Fung (Yung, Yu, Yuen & Co. ) for 1st respondent

2nd & 3rd respondents in person