Chan Mui v. The Queen

CACC000210/1983

BETWEEN

-----------

Coram: Yang J.A. (sitting as an additional High Court Judge)

Date: 10th March, 1983.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. This is the Appellant's appeal against sentence.

2. She was the keeper of a vice establishment which employed several young women whose ages ranged between fifteen to nineteen years. There was no evidence as to whether it was a profitable venture or if so, what her profits were.

3. On the charge of keeping a vice establishment she was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. On the charge of exercising direction. over a prostitute of 19 years of age, she was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, the sentence to run concurrently with that of the eighteen months. But on the charge of exercising direction over another prostitute, who was 16 years of age, a sentence of six months' imprisonment was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence of eighteen months - in the words of the trial Magistrate - "to reflect its seriousness".

4. Section 138 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, provides a maximum of five years' imprisonment for the offence of exercising control, direction or influence over a prostitute. For keeping a vice establishment, section 139 of the same Ordinance provides a maximum sentence on summary conviction of a fine of $20,000 and imprisonment for two years. It is therefore obvious that in the Legislature's opinion, a section 138 offence is more serious than a section 139 offence. The trial Magistrate's sentences however seem to indicate that he took a contrary view. Also it is in my view wrong in principle to order a sentence to run consecutively to another sentence so as to reflect the gravity of one aspect of what is essentially a single transaction, as indeed the trial Magistrate himself thought it was, by making the sentences of the first two charges concurrent.

5. There are no recent guidelines as to sentences that I am aware o?for direction over prostitutes, but in the case of Wong Chi-hung and Another v. The Queen (unreported), 1982, Court of Appeal Criminal Case No. 285, a sentence of eighteen months was reduced to nine months for keeping a vice establishment. McMullin V.-P. said:-

"Should this disreputable trade show further signs of increase or even should it show no appreciable diminution in the months ahead it may well be that still heavier sentences may have to be considered. The present sentences even thus reduced are, so far as we are aware, several times greater than any yet imposed."

6. Having regard to all the circumstances, in particular the ages of the prostitutes and also the totality of the sentences to be observed, I allow the appeal and substitute a sentence of six months for keeping a vice establishment, and sentences of twelve months and fifteen months for exercising direction over a prostitute of 19 years of age and another of 16 years of age respectively, all three sentences to run concurrently.

Representation:

Mr. J.M. Pickavant (Wing Sum Lo & Co.) for Appellant.

Mr. Ncnamara, Senior Crown Counsel for Crown/Respondent.