12 Oct 2005
The trial magistrate's credibility findings in favour of the prosecution were accepted; the undercover sale evidence and the link between the stockroom and appellant established the elements of each offence beyond reasonable doubt, so the Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions.
28 Aug 1998
The magistrate was not wrong in principle and the sentence was not manifestly excessive because the appellant's repeated breaches and the public danger from unregulated possession of Part I poisons and antibiotics justified a deterrent custodial sentence; appeal dismissed.
23 Apr 1987
The magistrate did not err in principle in imposing immediate custody for managing an unregistered clinic given the risk to the public and the appellant's prior conviction; however the fines for the possession charges were manifestly excessive and were reduced from $2,500 to $1,000 each.
10 Sept 1982
Conviction for running an unlicensed clinic was quashed because evidence (translated outpatient handbook) showed the seized drugs had been prescribed for the appellant and supported that they were for his personal use; however, on a strict construction of the Antibiotics Ordinance (Cap.137 s5) and the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap.138 s23) there is no statutory exemption for patients in possession of prescribed antibiotics or Part I poisons, so convictions on those charges are sustained, but because of extenuating circumstances the court exercised Magistrates Ordinance s36 to absolve th…
15 May 1978
The magistrate properly applied the statutory sentencing framework and exercised discretion: the fine of $1,000 and two months' imprisonment suspended for two years for the managing-unregistered-clinic offence was within legislative intent for a second offence, and the magistrate properly considered mitigation; however, the fines for the related possession offences were excessive in amount and should be reduced to reflect an overall approach to sentencing for the interconnected offences.
21 Sept 1977
The Court found the magistrate's fines in most cases to be manifestly excessive and varied them: the substantive offences (practising medicine without registration or managing an unregistered clinic) attract the principal fine while possession offences closely connected thereto merit nominal fines; where appellants had relevant prior convictions or where quantity of poisons indicated supply, higher fines were upheld or increased; one appeal (Mok) was dismissed and sentences upheld.
21 Sept 1977
The magistrate's fines were manifestly excessive and lacked the necessary consultation when departing from accepted sentencing levels; the court identified the substantive offence in each case (practising medicine without registration or managing an unregistered clinic), imposed reduced fines for the substantive offence and nominal fines for closely connected subsidiary offences, increased fines where there were relevant previous convictions, and upheld the sentence only where the possession of Part I poisons was serious (appeal dismissed).
21 Sept 1977
The Court held that the magistrate's fines were in many instances manifestly excessive and reduced fines: the substantive offences were generally practising medicine without registration or managing an unregistered clinic, with possession of poisons/antibiotics treated as subsidiary warranting nominal fines, but where appellants had relevant prior convictions or where the quantity/supplier role was serious the higher fines were justified; one appeal was dismissed and original sentence upheld.
21 Sept 1977
The magistrate's fines were in many cases manifestly excessive; the Court substituted lower fines, holding that practising medicine without registration (or managing an unregistered clinic) is the substantive offence meriting the principal fine while possession of Part I poisons and antibiotics generally require only nominal fines unless possession is large or indicative of supply; prior convictions justify higher fines; one appeal (Mok Wing-fat) was dismissed because the quantity of poisons justified the original sentence.
21 Sept 1977
The Court held that most fines imposed by the magistrate were manifestly excessive and reduced them: treating practising medicine without registration or management of an unregistered clinic as the substantive offence deserving the principal fine and imposing nominal fines for possession counts except where prior convictions or large quantities justified higher penalties; excess sums paid must be refunded.