Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000016/1981 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 December 1981 before McMullin, V.-P., Li & Silke, JJ.A..
Criminal law – gambling – Gambling Ordinance Cap. 148, section 6 – review of sentence – application by Attorney General – adequacy of fines imposed on gamblers in a small-scale Pai Kau operation on 9 September 1981 – prior convictions of respondents – small scale of operation evidenced by only HK$6,560 on table and HK$1,510 on gamblers – Whether current scale of fines for section 6 offences reflects legislative intent of 1977 Ordinance – Whether previous convictions should be taken into account in fixing fine – Whether imprisonment should be imposed for mere gambling – Whether suspended sentence of imprisonment is appropriate where defendant's means are inadequate – Held: a good case made out for increasing the basic tariff rate for first offenders under section 6 to the region of $600-700 – previous convictions should be taken into account in considering whether basic rate should be exceeded – imprisonment for section 6 offence should only be considered where peculiarly aggravating circumstances are disclosed – suspended sentence of imprisonment only appropriate in cases where imprisonment is indicated as a reasonable option in the first instance rather than a fine or lesser punishment – intention of Legislature is a consideration of prime importance in setting the basic scale of penalties for gambling offences – statistics showed no decrease in section 6 convictions despite greatly increased maximum penalties in 1977 – Attorney General succeeded in establishing guidelines but no alteration made to sentences of present respondents
Legal issues: Adequacy of basic tariff of fines for section 6 gambling offence · Relevance of previous convictions to sentencing under section 6 · Imprisonment for section 6 offence · Suspended sentence for section 6 offence
Outcome: Application for review succeeded in establishing new sentencing guidelines; no alteration made to the sentences imposed on the 10 respondents.