The Queen v. Yeung Sing-kuen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 358/1983 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The appellant was convicted of hawking without a licence, contrary to Section 83B(3) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap.132 and was fined $50 and ordered to pay $50 costs. The magistrate also ordered the forfeiture of dresses which the appellant was then hawking unlawfully. He said
|
CACC000358/1983 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1983 __________________ Between
____________________ Coram: Hon. Addison, J. in Court Date: 12th April, 1983 _____________ JUDGMENT _____________ 1. The appellant was convicted of hawking without a licence, contrary to Section 83B(3) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap.132 and was fined $50 and ordered to pay $50 costs. The magistrate also ordered the forfeiture of dresses which the appellant was then hawking unlawfully. He said
2. The appellant appealed against the order of forfeiture. 3. In the evidence given before the magistrate it was only the appellant who referred to the fact that the police officer took possession of his goods. The magistrate recorded
4. Section 86A(l)(a) of Cap. 132 enacts :
5. It is quite clear that Section 86A(l) is punitive and as such it must be strictly complied with. I am of the view that the obligatory power of the court to order forfeiture only arises after the court has been informed of the seizure by the informant. He has a legal duty to impart that information and where this is not done, as happened here, the order of forfeiture is invalid. It was for this reason that the order forfeiting 350 dresses was set aside. 6. The dresses are to be returned to the appellant.
Representation: Mr. S.H. Cotsen for Crown. Appellant in person. |