R. v. VARMA MAHARAJ KRISHNA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.321 OF 1995

___________

________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to keeping a guesthouse without a certificate of exemption. He was fined $12,000. He now appeals against this sentence.

2. As appears from his submission in mitigation placed before the learned magistrate, he first operated an unlicenced guesthouse in a unit in Chung King Mansion in 1986. Then the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance became effective in 1991. The appellant was given two years of exemption up to 1993 when his exemption certificate expired. The appellant said that he had applied for extension but did not have any success. However, he claimed that the relevant departments were aware of the running of his guesthouse at the premises.

3. I have looked at his further submission in this appeal. He is now aged 68 or 69. He said that this was he first offence and it was only out of sympathy that he let out a room to an undercover police officer. He said that there was no prior warning before he was charged. However, before the learned magistrate, a letter was produced which was dated 6th July 1994 from the City and New Territories Administration giving him the warning. The appellant now informs me in his submission that he had never received this warning notice.

4. I have considered his submission and additional submission placed before me. When I look at the correspondence, it was obvious that he was provided with some forms to apply for a certificate of exemption because during the course of a year and a half or probably two years, he had been trying to get exemption. So, in my view, he had ample notice and knowledge as to the risk of running a guesthouse without a licence or a certificate of exemption.

5. This is a unit in Chung King Mansion. It is notorious that that mansion is subjected to fire hazards and it is absolutely necessary that fire regulations and/or safety regulations must be complied with and the requirement of an application for a certificate of exemption serves the purpose of ensuring that the applicant would comply with all these regulations.

6. In my view, there is absolutely no merit in this appeal against sentence. The only thing which would perhaps raise some sympathy in my mind is his reference to a similar case some time ago, I think a few months ago, when a lady was given a fine of $10,000 for a similar offence. That was sometime in February 1995. On this very limited basis, I would have sympathy with the appellant. I would allow his appeal and reduce the fine to $10,000.