Li Wan Choi v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 334/1980 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The appellant was charged with carrying on the business of a restaurant on 12th November, 1979, otherwise than under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Urban Council, contrary to Bylaw 32(1)(b) of the Food Business Bylaws.
|
CACC000334/1980 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 334 OF 1980 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Bewley, J. in Court Date of Judgment: 21st May, 1980. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was charged with carrying on the business of a restaurant on 12th November, 1979, otherwise than under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Urban Council, contrary to Bylaw 32(1)(b) of the Food Business Bylaws. 2. He pleaded guilty on 2nd April this year and was fined $5,000, plus daily fines amounting to $1,400. The latter represented a fine of $50 in respect of each day between the date of the offence and the ultimate grant of the licence on 21st December. He now appeals against sentence. 3. The facts given to the court below were minimal: the Learned Magistrate was told only that the restaurant was 3,200 sq.ft. in size, that it had been operating since July and that there was a previous conviction in December, when a fine of $300 was imposed. 4. Counsel for the Crown has now been able to supply me with more particulars. The December conviction related to an inspection in July, when customers were present. The summons in respect of that offence was not served until 30th November. 5. There were further inspections on 12th and 15th October, but on these occasions there were no customers on the premises. On 12th November, 15 customers were being served, but there was seating for a total of 115. Three waiters were in attendance. 6. The appellant pleaded that it had taken 7 months to obtain a licence and complained that a misunderstanding by PWD had delayed the process by 10 weeks. 7. Whether or not this is true, it appears that this is not a case falling into the most serious category. The maximum daily fine is $250 and, in my view, $50 per day was a proper penalty. But I felt, in the circumstances, that the $5,000 fine - half the maximum - was too high and reduced it to $3,000. To that extent I allowed the appeal.
Representation: Appellant in person Mr Freeman, Crown Counsel, for respondent |