Attorney General v. Chan Tak Kwai

Case No.HCMA 1167/1990

Court

High Court CFI

Date10 Oct 1990

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMA001167/1990

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1167/90

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

BETWEEN

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

CHAN Tak-kwai

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

Coram: Hon. Yang, CJ

Date of Hearing: 27 September 1990

Date of Judgment: 10 October 1990

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

JUDGMENT

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

Hon Yang, C. J.:

1. This is a case stated by Mr. Paterson-Todd, a magistrate sitting at the Fanling Magistracy.

2. On the 7th June 1990, the Respondent was convicted upon his plea of (1) attempting to export unmanifested cargo, namely, 200 ladies' watches without bracelets, 100 men's watches without bracelets, 100 men's and 200 ladies' watch bracelets, and other items, and (2) attempting to export goods to which a forged 'Titoni' trade-mark was applied, namely 200 ladies' watches without bracelets and 200 ladies' watch bracelets. He was fined a total of $8,500. The magistrate also ordered that the said articles be returned to the Respondent on condition that within 30 days from the date of conviction and sentence he caused to be removed from the seized articles the forged 'Titoni' trade-mark.

3. On the 19th June 1990, the Appellant made an application for review against the magistrate's order returning the articles in question to the Respondent on condition, upon the ground that the overall appearance of the "false watches" was similar to that of the genuine watches. The magistrate was of the view that that point not having been raised at the hearing, it would be wrong for him to allow the Applicant to argue it. He therefore refused the application for review.

4. In the case stated, the magistrate found the following facts:

	1.	the Respondent was the only claimant of the said articles;
	2.	the said articles had a counterfeit brand name 'Titoni' affixed to them and were liable to forfeiture;
	3.	the said articles were valued at $30,000;
	4.	the said articles had been purchased by the Respondent from a mobile stall in Temple Street;
	5.	the Respondent had intended to sell the said articles in China for profit and to this end had paid $1,200 to the other person with whom he was charged to transport them across the border;
	6.	the said articles were found at the Hong Kong border contained in polythene bags inside the tool box of a lorry driven by the Respondent's co-defendant;
	7.	the Respondent had a clear record;
	8.	the Respondent had been fined a total sum of $8,500 as a result of his conviction upon the said offences.

5. The questions of law arising for the opinion of this Court are:

FIRSTLY WHETHER the magistrate exercised his discretion to forfeit the said articles judicially.

SECONDLY WHETHER on the subsequent application to review the magistrate was correct in preventing the Appellant, from raising and arguing the point that the counterfeit watches were similar in appearance to the genuine ones.

The First Question

6. The law on the question is clear. I shall therefore confine myself simply to following the decisions in the Director of Immigration v Chu Shiu-fat (1980) HKLR 780, and the Attorney General v So Lo-kam (1986) HKLR 564, 569. In the later case de Basto, J. lays down certain guidelines that the magistrate should take into account when considering whether or not to order forfeiture (vide p. 569 F - I).With respect, I adopt the same guidelines.

7. Chu Shiu-fat (supra) was followed by Nazareth, J. in The Queen v Ngai Wai Magistracy Appeal No. 750 of 1985 (unreported). There it was held that in considering whether there was good reason for not ordering forfeiture the judge might consider that where forfeiture would constitute so grossly disproportionate a penalty in the particular circumstances of an essentially technical offence, that of itself must constitute good reason for not ordering it. That decision is heavily relied on by the Respondent; it is however easily distinguishable. In the present case, particularly in respect of the second charge, the offence is certainly not technical. The answer to the First Question is therefore in the negative.

The Second Question

8. As to the Second Question it is trite law that a magistrate is empowered to hear on review arguments not raised at the trial. The answer to the Second Question is therefore also in the negative. In any event, the Appellant concedes that for the purpose of the present case, it was not necessary for the issue as to similarity of the watches to be argued.

9. In all the circumstances of the case, an order for forfeiture should have been made in respect of the goods specified in the second charge and I so order.

T. L. Yang
Chief Justice

Representation:

Mr. D. G. Saw for Crown/Appellant

Mr. Wong Sai-kit (C. K. Mok & Co.) for Respondent