The Queen v. Chan Shun-hong
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 1510/1983 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The Appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm upon his very newly-married wife. It is a sad story; the difficulties between them seem to have been of a financial kind. Before me the Appellant passionately denied that he had assaulted his wife and alleged that he was the victim of her assaults. The Magistrate heard the evidence of both parties. The Appellant was legally represented. There were no other witnesses. Rather oddly no medical evidence was put before the Magis
|
HCCC001510/1983 IN THE SUPREME COURT
BETWEEN
________ Coram: Baber, J. in court Date: 18th January 1984 __________ JUDGMENT __________ 1. The Appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm upon his very newly-married wife. It is a sad story; the difficulties between them seem to have been of a financial kind. Before me the Appellant passionately denied that he had assaulted his wife and alleged that he was the victim of her assaults. The Magistrate heard the evidence of both parties. The Appellant was legally represented. There were no other witnesses. Rather oddly no medical evidence was put before the Magistrate. I was somewhat surprised that the police decided to bring a criminal charge against the Appellant in all the circumstances; they did so, however, the Magistrate had the advantage of seeing and hearing the two parties and came to the conclusion that the charge was proved against the Appellant; and I am not prepared to say that he was wrong in that conclusion. Accordingly the appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. The Magistrate purported to fine the Appellant $250 and further to discharge him conditionally on his entering into a bond in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour and to appear for sentence when called on at any time during the next 12 months. This conditional discharge was clearly made under section 36 of the Magistrates Ordinance. The section allows orders of conditional discharge to be made only when in the view of the Magistrate ."it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal punishment". In my view a fine of $250 is not a nominal punishment. I doubt whether any fine of a proper amount is a nominal punishment. Trainor, J. took the same view of the impropriety under the Ordinance of combining a fine, in that case one of $500, with an order of conditional discharge in Chan Wing Kei v. The Queen, Criminal Appeal 334 of 1978. 3. Accordingly I give the Appellant leave to appeal against sentence out of time. In the unusual circumstances of this case I allow the appeal to the extent that I set aside the order for the payment of the fine of $250, allow the order for conditional discharge to stand but, in the hope (not very great, I fear) that there may be a reconciliation order that no conviction be recorded.
Representation: Appellant in person. Mr. J. O'Mahony for Crown. |