HKSAR v. Chan Siu Bun

HCMA000246/2000

HCMA 246/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 6202/1999)

____________

____________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 24 March 2000

Date of Judgment: 24 March 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant appeals against conviction for one offence of possession of 1,153 video compact discs and 325 music compact discs being infringing copies of copyright works, for the purpose of trade or business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright without the licence of the copyright owner. This is contrary to Section 118(1)(d) of the Copyright Ordinance, Cap. 528.

2. The Appellant was arrested after he was found in a locked shop premises where these items were found. He gave an explanation to Customs Officers at the time of the arrival. It is submitted the Magistrate failed to give consideration to the fact that the premises were locked at the time and the Applicant had no key. It is submitted also that the Magistrate erred in finding the only inference to be drawn from the Applicant's presence in the premises was that he was in possession of the infringing discs.

3. It was also submitted that the Magistrate failed to give due weight to the explanation given by the Appellant of his presence at the scene, in particular, that it was given only five minutes after his arrest and within twenty three minutes of its conclusion another person returned to the premises and admitted that he owned the shop.

4. I considered the Magistrate's Statement of Findings and the papers associated with the case. I cannot see that the Magistrate can be faulted with the way he dealt with the case or with the way he dealt with the matter of inferences. He gave himself the appropriate warnings. He did not accept the explanation given by the Appellant for his presence in the shop and he was sure that the only inference to be drawn that he was in possession. He was entitled to reject Appellant's explanation.

5. I cannot see anything in this appeal which indicates to me that the Magistrate was at fault or that this conviction is unsafe. This appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Kevin P Zervos, SADPP, for DPP

Ms C Draycott, instructed by Messrs Josip Ma & Co., for the Appellant