Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000017/1990 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 March 1991 before Silke VP, Power JA, Macdougall JA.
Criminal law – indecent assault – sentencing – review under s.61A Criminal Procedure Ordinance – indecent assault on female on MTR train – second offender – fine of $4,000 – whether manifestly inadequate – sentencing guidelines – prevalence of offence – deterrence – 'clang of the prison gates' – Criminal Procedure Ordinance s.61A – Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) s.122(1) – whether magistrate erred by relying on AG v. Seabrook – guidelines for first and second offenders – fines as alternative in rare cases – whether review court must impose the sentence it considers proper or may dismiss the application where offender personally deterred – AG v. Chan Tak King [1989] 2 HKLR 428.
Legal issues: Whether a fine of $4,000 for indecent assault on MTR by a second offender was manifestly inadequate · Sentencing guidelines for indecent assault on the MTR
Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the $4,000 fine was manifestly inadequate, but did not substitute the custodial sentence it considered should have been imposed, finding the respondent personally sufficiently deterred by the proceedings and publicity. The application was effectively concluded without further punishment.
Cited by 2 cases