Wong Wai v. The Queen

Read the full judgment text of CACC 438/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to obstruction and hawking without a licence and was sentenced to a fine of $20 on each charge. At the time he committed the offence a wooden cart and its contents were confiscated and the magistrate made an order directing that these articles should be forfeited under section 86A(1)(a) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.

Case No.CACC 438/1975
Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC000438/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 438 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN:    
  WONG WAI Appellant
  and  
  THE QUEEN Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 14th July, 1975.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to obstruction and hawking without a licence and was sentenced to a fine of $20 on each charge. At the time he committed the offence a wooden cart and its contents were confiscated and the magistrate made an order directing that these articles should be forfeited under section 86A(1)(a) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.

2. The facts were that the appellant, who was a very sick man, was looking after a hawker's cart and its contents for him while he was away. The owner of these articles has a hawker's licence. The contents of the wooden cart consisted of 359 pairs of trousers, two cloth bags and 10 dress hangers.

3. In my view, the facts of this case enable me to make an order under section 86A(1)(b) exempting these articles from forfeiture.

4. These goods, the trousers etc. and the wooden cart were not the property of the appellant and, presumably, if an order for forfeiture were made the owner would have the right to recover the cost of these articles from the appellant. I don't think that such a serious effect for what is a comparatively minor offence was in the contemplation of the legislature when section 86A was enacted.

5. I therefore allow the appeal to the extent that the order forfeiting the equipment and commodities in this case be quashed and that the cart and its contents be returned to their rightful owner.

  (Geoffrey Briggs)
  Chief Justice.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Caird for crown.