HKSAR v. SKRADDE PATRICK JOHANNES

HCMA815/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 815 OF 2009

(ON APPEAL FROM ESR 12 OF 2009)

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. The appellant was convicted after trial of an offence of littering.  It was alleged he had thrown a cigarette butt into a gully at Hing Tung Street in Tung Chung.

2. He was summonsed under section 4(1)(a) of the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulations under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap.132.  That section is as follows :

“4. (1)   No person shall deposit or cause or permit to be deposited any litter or waste on or in-

(a)   any street or public place;”

3. The evidence against the appellant came from PW1 who was an Assistant Hawker Control Officer of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.  His evidence was that on 22 October 2008 at 5:10 p.m. he had seen the appellant smoking a cigarette in the vicinity of No. 1 Hing Tung Street, and then walk to the vicinity of a gully next to the road and throw the cigarette butt into that gully.  PW1 then went up to the appellant and informed him that he would be served with a Fixed Penalty Ticket.  The appellant initially refused to cooperate or accept the ticket and the police were called.  The appellant then accepted the ticket.  The appellant subsequently told PW1 that the cigarette butt was rolled by him and was organic and would dissolve in the gully. 

4. The appellant gave evidence at trial.  He admitted throwing the remnants of his cigarette into the gully but said it was not really a cigarette as it was made of specially fine cut tobacco and did not have a filter as does a commercial cigarette.  He said all that was thrown into the gully were the remains of the tobacco he had smoked, which was not “litter” as it was not environmentally harmful.

5. The magistrate rejected the appellant’s case, accepted the evidence of PW1 and convicted the appellant of the charged offence. 

6. The unrepresented appellant argues before me that what he threw into the gully comprised only the remnants of tobacco leaves and because it was not environmentally harmful, was not “litter” or “waste”.

7. I have, on the law, no hesitation in finding that it was “litter” and was “waste”.  In my view, and without attempting a universal or exhaustive definition of either “litter” or “waste” those concepts would certainly include the material remnants or leftovers of any human activity, whether recreational, domestic or commercial.  It would certainly include the remnants from activities such as the consumption of food or drink or of any other item such as a cigarette. 

8. Accordingly, on that basis, the appeal is dismissed.