Wong Tai-chong v. The Queen

CACC000520/1976

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

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

Coram: Trainor, J.

Date of Judgment: 31st May, 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. Wong Tai-Chong was charged in the magistrates court on a count of possessing instruments for forging a Rolex watch trade-mark, and a count of possession for the purpose of trade or manufacture certain articles to which a forged Rolex watch trade-mark had been applied. To those counts he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Against those sentences he now appeals.

2. No grounds of appeal were filed other than the general ground that the sentences were too severe. Mr. Hoo of Counsel, instructed by Messrs. C.C. Lee & Co., appeared on behalf of the appellant. He told me that he was instructed that the appellant was not heard in mitigation in the court below after he had pleaded guilty. He further told me that he was instructed that the articles found in the appellant's possession did not belong to him. He said he was instructed by the appellant that the articles were given to him by a Mr. Lee who gave him some money and said he would tell him later to do something with them. Mr. Hoo further said that the appellant had told him that he did not know that he had done anything against the law. As to the first point that the appellant had not been heard in mitigation, may I say that I would be very reluctant indeed to believe that a Magistrate of the ability and experience of the learned Magistrate who heard this case would not have asked the appellant if he had anything to say in mitigation. My opinion on this is fortified by what are clearly untrue instructions by the appellant to his counsel that the articles were not his. It is on the record that after the plea of guilty the appellant was asked by the learned Magistrate whether or not the articles were his and the Magistrate has made a note that the defendant agreed they were all his property. As to what was suggested that the appellant did not know that he was breaking the law I have only this to say that apart entirely from the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse, I do not believe that the appellant did not know what he was doing was wrong.

3. The watch industry in Hong Kong is one of its most important industries. Hong Kong is one of the largest exporters of watches in the world. In addition, the sale of watches to tourists in Hong Kong is a very important source of revenue to the Colony. It is therefore essential that the honour and integrity of Hong Kong in this field must be maintained, and that confidence in the products and those things that are sold in the Colony should be preserved. Were the Colony to acquire the reputation of being a source of spurious goods, its reputation, and with it its industry, would crash. I have been informed and indeed it is generally well known that the type of offence to which the appellant pleaded guilty is prevalent and very difficult to discover, and it is only by the imposition of penalties that will adequately punish the offender and serve as a deterrent to others that an end can be put to this nefarious trade.

4. In my opinion, an offence such as this well warrants a term of imprisonment. The appellant is a person of hitherto blameless character and I have been informed that the usual penalty heretofore for a first offender has been a substantial monetary penalty. However, I have also been told that this does not appear to have had the desired effect. Neither Counsel for the defence nor Crown Counsel was aware of any previous similar case in which a term of imprisonment was imposed for a first offence and it occurs to me that perhaps in the circumstances a sentence of a year's imprisonment on each count is somewhat excessive. In the circumstances, but with some hesitation, I substitute a penalty of six months on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

Representation:

Alan Hoo (C.C.Lee & Co.) for appellant.

Hindle c.c. for Crown.