Attorney General v. Wan Shuk Kam
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 1 OF 1973 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, MuMullin and Pickering, JJ. ----------------------------- DECISION ----------------------------- Huggins, J.: 1. This is an application by the Attorney General for review of a sentence imposed by a magistrate for an offence under By-Law 4 of the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances By-Laws, 1972. The learned magistrate imposed a fine of $60. 2. The Respondent did not appear personally before the magistrate but was represented by her husband. She does not contest that her husband had her authority to appear and plead Guilty, but we would draw attention to the provisions of s.8A(7) of the Magistrates Ordinance, which requires that in a case such as this the representative must satisfy the magistrate not only that he has authority to enter a plea of Guilty but also that he is himself able to pay any fine imposed. Where a representative appears it is desirable that it should be apparent on the magistrate’s record that the conditions have been fulfilled. 3. At the outset we wish to emphasise that we are concerned with the facts of the case and not with what has happened since this application was filed. There have been previous hearings and adjournments of the application but, for the purpose of this case, we will accept the explanation given by the Respondent and disregard what has caused the adjournments. 4. The facts are that the Respondent was seen travelling as a passenger in a motor-car and was seen by the driver of a following vehicle to throw some litter out of the window. This other driver alighted from his vehicle, picked up the paper and returned it to the Respondent. The Respondent thereupon proceeded to throw out a number of pieces of paper from the car as it was in motion – both vehicles having again started. 5. This was not even an instance of an instinctive reaction to what this lady may (wrongly) have thought was a high-handed act on the part of the following driver: it was a deliberate flouting of the law and showed an arrogance which we think greatly aggravated the offence. The sentence of $60 fine might have been appropriate for the original throwing out of the paper but, in our view, that was a manifestly inadequate sentence for what in fact transpired. We grant a review and upon the review we increase this sentence to a fine of $400. 6. The attempt to clean Hong Kong will be frustrated if people conduct themselves in the manner in which the Respondent conducted herself and, in so far as it is properly within its power, this Court will support the present campaign to keep the Colony clean. 20th March, 1973 |