30 Dec 1988
The magistrate's heavy and inconsistent fines were in many cases excessive and failed adequately to apply sentencing principles (first offender status and ability to pay); appellate court reduced fines accordingly (first offenders to $600; certain repeat offenders to intermediate sums of $700–$750) while dismissing one appeal where the fine was acceptable.
16 Dec 1988
In the absence of any record or evidence demonstrating the extent or seriousness of obstruction and in light of prior appellate decisions treating unrecorded hawking offences as first offences, the fines of $1,000 imposed by the magistrate were excessive; appeals are allowed in part and fines are reduced to reflect first-offender status and proportionality.
16 Dec 1988
In the absence of any evidence or record demonstrating the extent or seriousness of obstruction and having regard to appellate authorities treating unrecorded hawking offenders as first offenders, the $1,000 fines were excessive; accordingly fines are reduced to $600 for the appeals generally and to $200 in the case where the appellant (Madam Mok) was 62 and only had two cartons of pears on the pavement.
16 Dec 1988
Because there was no record of prior hawking offences and no evidence was produced to establish the extent or seriousness of obstruction, the £1,000 fines were excessive for first offenders; following O'Connor J and Bewley J the appropriate reduction is to $600 in the typical cases and a greater reduction to $200 is warranted in a case of minimal conduct and advanced age.
16 Dec 1988
In the absence of any record of prior offences and any evidence as to the extent or seriousness of the obstruction, appellants must be treated as first offenders and a fine of $1,000 was excessive; accordingly fines are reduced to $600 except in one compassionate case reduced to $200, following precedent reducing first-offender fines in identical appeals.
16 Dec 1988
Because there was no evidence as to the extent or seriousness of the obstruction and no record of prior convictions, the appellants must be treated as first offenders; a $1,000 fine was excessive in these circumstances and should be reduced (generally to $600, with an exception reduced to $200 for the elderly vendor with minimal goods).