Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000006/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 April 1996 before Power, V.-P., Mayo and Ching, JJ.A..
Criminal law – obscene articles – sentencing – review – degree of obscenity – duty of sentencing court to assess – Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance Cap.390 s.21(1)(a) and s.21(1)(b) – Attorney General's application for review of sentence – respondent pleaded guilty to publishing and possessing obscene video tapes – magistrate fined $3,000 and $7,000 – Attorney General submitted imprisonment was appropriate – Court of Appeal held that the magistrate failed to assess the degree of obscenity – without such finding, no basis for review – application refused – court emphasized that where serious obscenity is shown, imprisonment is appropriate even for first offenders – sentencing court must make its own assessment of obscenity
Legal issues: Assessment of degree of obscenity · Propriety of fine vs imprisonment
Outcome: Application for review of sentence refused.