The Queen v. Tang Kwong-kan

CACC000275/1984

BETWEEN

________

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.

Representation: