HKSAR v. Tam Yiu Lam
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 61/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 5 February 1999.
1. On 4th December 1998 this appellant pleaded guilty in the Tsuen Wan Magistracy to
|
HCMA000061/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 61 & 62 OF 1999 ____________
____________ Coram: Deputy Judge Jackson in Court Date of Hearing: 5 February 1999 Date of Delivery of Judgment: 5 February 1999 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1. On 4th December 1998 this appellant pleaded guilty in the Tsuen Wan Magistracy to
2. In respect of the first offence the learned Magistrate sentenced the appellant to a term of 3 months' imprisonment and fined him $8,000.00 (the amount of his bail money). In respect of the second offence the learned Magistrate sentenced the appellant to a term of 4 months' imprisonment and fined him $8,000.00 (the amount of his bail money). The term of 4 months was ordered to be served consecutive to the 3 month term. 3. It is against these sentences which the appellant appeals; however this morning he has sought to say that he has no complaint about the sentences of imprisonment: what he takes exception to is the imposition of the fines in addition. 4. The appellant is aged 39 and has no fewer than 23 previous convictions for dishonesty; for violence; for possessing dangerous drugs; and on 8th May 1998 and 13th May 1998 for offences of possessing obscene articles for publication. In respect of those 2 offences the appellant was given firstly a suspended sentence of 3 months' imprisonment and secondly an immediate sentence of 2 months' imprisonment. By virtue of the second conviction the suspended sentence was activated and ordered to be served consecutive to the 2 month term. 5. In his careful reasons for the sentences imposed in the present case, the subject of the appeal, the learned Magistrate deals with these matters in some detail. In my view he cannot be faulted in the sentences which he imposed. He said, with reference to the 2nd offence in time, the following:-
6. I would just add this; that the maximum sentence for one offence of possessing obscene articles for publication is a fine of $1 million and imprisonment for 3 years. 7. As Miss HO counsel for the Respondent has argued before me this morning the judgment in AG v. TANG King Ming [1986] HKLR 210 is the plainest authority for the preposition that and I quote:-
8. That is precisely the course that the learned Magistrate took in this case. 9. There is nothing in this appeal. It is dismissed.
Representation: Miss Winnie HO, GC for HKSAR/DPP Mr TAM Yiu-lam, Appellant in Person |