HKSAR v. Lau Wai Keung
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 224/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 May 2006.
1. The appellant was convicted on his own plea to one charge of ‘publishing obscene articles’, contrary to section 21(1)(a) of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap.390) (Charge (1)), and one charge of ‘possession of obscene articles for publication’ contrary to section 21(1)(b) of the same Ordinance (Charge (2)). For Charge (1), he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. For Charge (2), 10 months’ imprisonment plus a fine of $5,000. Both prison terms are to run concurr
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCMA224/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.224 OF 2006 (On Appeal From KTCC 987 OF 2006) --------------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- Before : Deputy High Court Judge D. Pang in Court Date of Hearing : 11 May 2006 Date of Judgment : 11 May 2006 -------------------------- J U D G M E N T -------------------------- 1.The appellant was convicted on his own plea to one charge of ‘publishing obscene articles’, contrary to section 21(1)(a) of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap.390) (Charge (1)), and one charge of ‘possession of obscene articles for publication’ contrary to section 21(1)(b) of the same Ordinance (Charge (2)). For Charge (1), he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. For Charge (2), 10 months’ imprisonment plus a fine of $5,000. Both prison terms are to run concurrently. He now appealsagainst the sentence on Charge (2) only. The facts 2.These are the facts on which the appellant entered his pleas :
The magistrate’s reasons 3.They go as follows :
The present appeal 4.Before me, the appellant has two complaints. The first concerns the length of the 10-month term. He says he knows fellow inmates who have been given much lighter sentences for the same offence. The second complaint concerns the fine which, in the appellant’s eye, amounts to punishing him twice. 5.Neither of these complaints has any merit. 6.It has been decided in HKSAR v. Chan Mau-lung [2003] 4 HKC 202 that the usual starting for the offence in question is 9 to 12 months. For cases involving a very large number of offensive articles sold in shop premises, however, a higher starting point should be adopted. In the case of Chan itself, a 12-month starting point was considered appropriate for the defendant manning a makeshift stall with 98 VCDs in Temple Street. It must follow that the starting point in this case is not excessive. 7.As regards the fine, all I would say is it is stated in HKSAR v. Tang Kam Cheung [2000] 3 HKLRD 516 at 520 that :
Judgment 8.The appeal is dismissed.
Ms Leung Sun Yee, SGC of Department of Justice, for HKSAR Appellant in person, present |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCMA 224/2006