Yip Kau v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 319/1973 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an appeal from a sentence of one month's imprisonment imposed by a magistrate's court. The appellant was convicted of an offence under Regulations 55(1)(c) and 60(9) of the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations. These regulations are concerned with the proper precaution to be taken when a blasting operation is undertaken.
|
CACC000319/1973 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 319 OF 1973 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Briggs, J. Date of Judgment: 9th May, 1973. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal from a sentence of one month's imprisonment imposed by a magistrate's court. The appellant was convicted of an offence under Regulations 55(1)(c) and 60(9) of the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations. These regulations are concerned with the proper precaution to be taken when a blasting operation is undertaken. 2. The appellant is a shot firer of some experience. On the 2nd April, 1973 he was engaged in a certain blasting operation at a construction site at Cloud View Road. A bamboo embankment had been erected and the operation took place in the presence of members of the Mines Department who were, it seems, satisfied with the precautions against damage from an explosion taking place. 3. However something went wrong and the blast resulted in considerable damage being done to neighbouring property. Fortunately no one was hurt. The damage has been put right since the incident. 4. The magistrate sentenced the appellant to a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine. The maximum punishment for an offence under these sections is a month's imprisonment or a fine of $2,000. 5. I do not think that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate in this case. There was nothing wilful or wanton in the conduct of the appellant. The facts show simply that there was negligence resulting in damage to property which has been made good. Certain precautions against damage had been taken and had been approved by the Mines Department. Finally the appellant is an experienced shot firer and nothing like this has happened to him before. 6. I therefore allowed the appeal; set aside the sentence of imprisonment and substituted a fine of $800 or one month's imprisonment in default of payment therefor. The appellant is to have 14 days to pay his fine.
9th May, 1973 Representation: K.Y. Woo & Co. for Appellant Sharwood, C.C., for Respondent. |