........
另付5655驗貨費 上訴遭駁回
今年7月，林俊明收到傳票後，曾諮詢律師意見，認為無法抗辯，決定認罪，其後在裁判法院被裁定3張傳票罪成，共罰款9000元，另須支付5655元驗貨費。林俊明憶述他當時在庭上求情，裁判官回應說「現在不是在街市買菜」，拒絕減刑。但林俊明表示，由於店小及初犯，加上賣棋利潤微薄，1.5萬元的懲罰過重。高院法官昨再駁回林俊明的上訴，解釋一般罰款由4000至2萬元不等，每張傳票被判罰3000元已屬輕判。 (節錄自明報2011年11月10日)
上面是明報今天的頭條新聞，小本毛利的生意惹起相對的大額罰款，連一向以鷹派處事的標少，也不禁為店東抱不平。上訴判辭還沒有上載，我不知駁回判罰上訴的理據，但單看報導所講，我覺得罰得過重(manifestly excessive)。干犯條例是香港法例第424章玩具及兒童產品安全條例第3條，有關玩具須符合安全標準的規定，初犯最高罰款100,000元及判監1年。雖然高院駁回上訴時指一般判罰4000至2萬元，我並不同意這講法。首先，最高罰款並非只針對玩具安全，也包括兒童產品，例如嬰兒奶瓶奶咀、學行車、嬰兒床、兒童高腳椅、繪畫顏料及手推車等。棋紙的厚度不符標準，就算是零售商，也因為法例屬嚴格法律要求(strict liability)而沒有抗辯理據。但相對於其他法例上保障的情況及產品對兒童可能做成的危險，這件案棋紙厚度的違例罰款，重得不合比例，也可能錯誤和一般罰則作比較。5千多元的化驗費究竟是怎樣計算出來呢？量度一張棋紙的厚度，何須5千多元？這件案的上訴判辭，標少拭目以待。
今年7月，林俊明收到傳票後，曾諮詢律師意見，認為無法抗辯，決定認罪，其後在裁判法院被裁定3張傳票罪成，共罰款9000元，另須支付5655元驗貨費。林俊明憶述他當時在庭上求情，裁判官回應說「現在不是在街市買菜」，拒絕減刑。但林俊明表示，由於店小及初犯，加上賣棋利潤微薄，1.5萬元的懲罰過重。高院法官昨再駁回林俊明的上訴，解釋一般罰款由4000至2萬元不等，每張傳票被判罰3000元已屬輕判。 (節錄自明報2011年11月10日)
上面是明報今天的頭條新聞，小本毛利的生意惹起相對的大額罰款，連一向以鷹派處事的標少，也不禁為店東抱不平。上訴判辭還沒有上載，我不知駁回判罰上訴的理據，但單看報導所講，我覺得罰得過重(manifestly excessive)。干犯條例是香港法例第424章玩具及兒童產品安全條例第3條，有關玩具須符合安全標準的規定，初犯最高罰款100,000元及判監1年。雖然高院駁回上訴時指一般判罰4000至2萬元，我並不同意這講法。首先，最高罰款並非只針對玩具安全，也包括兒童產品，例如嬰兒奶瓶奶咀、學行車、嬰兒床、兒童高腳椅、繪畫顏料及手推車等。棋紙的厚度不符標準，就算是零售商，也因為法例屬嚴格法律要求(strict liability)而沒有抗辯理據。但相對於其他法例上保障的情況及產品對兒童可能做成的危險，這件案棋紙厚度的違例罰款，重得不合比例，也可能錯誤和一般罰則作比較。5千多元的化驗費究竟是怎樣計算出來呢？量度一張棋紙的厚度，何須5千多元？這件案的上訴判辭，標少拭目以待。
Bill,
回覆刪除I share your view. It is surprising that the provision did not contain a "reasonable excuse/due diligence" defence, although it would probably be hard to even make out the defence. Putting the law to one side, from the common sense angle, it is hard to imagine anyone selling similar products anymore, and in order to do so they would have to pay $5,000 investigation costs first. The owner may have to sell 1,000 units of the product before he can recover his investigation costs!
The sentence was certainly excessive, it probably would be extremely hard to take the matter further despite the injustice that every reader would feel about the sentence. From your experience, would this offence possibly be dealt with by a warning? Given the low cost of the product, court proceedings may not be necessary and in any event, my view is that the sentence should at least be halved at the very least. I find it hard to believe that the Special Magistrate would find it appropriate to fine someone an amount on the 3 summons that would take the person 41 years selling the product to recover the costs of the fine.
Regards
L
L,
回覆刪除Section 25 Cap.424 provides a due diligence defence. In the instant case, I don't think the deft can make use of this provision. My main concern is that the fine imposed is out of proportion regarding the mischief the law intends to remedy.
Looking at the different sections of the law sharing the same penalty, you can see there is
an obvious disparity in the severity of the contraventions. A rigid application of the normal level of fines fails to reflect the seriousness of the danger of the toy. The present case is absurd not because of the meagre profit the deft can make, it is about the blatant disregard of the propensity of the flimsy chess paper may endanger the safety of the kids. If I were the magistrate, I would impose a nominal fine.
While I cannot say it is wrong to prosecute without warning, whether to prosecute a trifling matter or not is within the of the discretion of the authority. If I were the C&E prosecutor, I would not proceed with the case. One of the decision making criteria is whether in the interest of the public, the charge should be proceeded.