HKSAR v. Ha Cheuk Fung

HCMA 324/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 324 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC NO. 1696 OF 2006)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge E Toh in Court

Date of Hearing: 13 June 2006

Date of Judgment: 13 June 2006

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.The Appellant had pleaded guilty to a charge contrary to section 20(c) of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228, in that he did without reasonable cause persistently make telephone calls to the victim for the purpose of causing annoyance to her.

2.The facts were that the Appellant was the victim’s ex-lover and they had broken up.  The Appellant had started making numerous phone calls to her and when the victim complained to the police, with the assistance of the telephone company, the call was traced to the Appellant.  The Appellant when asked by the police, co-operated with the police and revealed that he did call the victim.  There were a total of 220 calls to the victim’s office and most of the calls were silent calls but in some of them the Appellant did speak to the victim asking her not to break up with him and it is also accepted that the Defendant made no threats or obscenities.

3.The learned Magistrate having considered the facts of the case and the mitigation concluded that a fine was appropriate in this case and so he fined the Appellant $1,000.

4.The Appellant appeals against that sentence, basically on the ground that he did not want a conviction to be recorded against him, as he fears that it might affect his future.

5.It was explained to him, as Mr Ho submitted, that this conviction will be spent in 3 years time if he does not commit another offence.

6.I have considered whether $1,000 fine is excessive and in the circumstances because of the great number of calls, the fine in fact is not excessive.  I therefore do not consider that there are any grounds for me to disturb the sentence imposed on the Appellant, as it is not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.

Mr Paul Ho, Senior Government Council, for the Respondent

Appellant in person