Tam Yuk-mui (F) v. The Queen

CACC000100/1977

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 12th March, 1977.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to hawking without a licence. She was fined $100 and the goods which she was hawking at the time of the offence were ordered to be returned to her. A few days after the above order was made by the magistrate he reviewed his decision and varied the order to the extent that the appellant was fined $1 and the goods which were seized were forfeited to the Crown. The appellant appealed against the decision of forfeiture.

2. The forfeiture of the goods in the circumstances of this case is mandatory under the provisions of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132. In this case six cardboard boxes of goods were seized by the Crown. There is some dispute whether all six or only two cardboard boxes were being exhibited for sale by the appellant at the time she was arrested. I think she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. She herself told the court that four of the six cardboard boxes were, in effect, her reserve stock and were not being displayed for hawking and were, in fact, tucked inside the doorway some distance away from where she was hawking.

3. I think, therefore, the correct order to make is that the two boxes which she was actually using at the time should be forfeited and the other four boxes should be returned to her. The sentence of the lower court is varied to that extent.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Evans, C.C., for Crown/Respondent.