Secretary for Justice v. Man Kwong Choi
|
CAAR 8/2007 & CAAR 9/2007 CAAR 8/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 8 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM FLCC NO. 1699 OF 2007) ----------------------
---------------------- CAAR 9/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 9 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM STCC NO. 4972 OF 2007) ----------------------
---------------------- Before : Hon Ma CJHC, Stuart-Moore VP & Stock JA in Court Date of Hearing : 18 March 2008 Date of Handing Down Judgment : 16 July 2008 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Hon Ma CJHC (giving the judgment of the Court) : Introduction 1.The Prevention of Child Pornography Ordinance, Cap.579 (“the PCPO”) was enacted to deal with the problems associated with child pornography. We are in these applications for review concerned with the appropriate sentences for the offence of possession of child pornography. Section 3(3) of the PCPO states : -
2.Hitherto, the courts have not been consistent in sentencing for this offence. Sentences have varied between terms of imprisonment, suspended sentences, fines, probation and commonly, community service orders. 3.The two cases that have led to the reviews of sentence provide fairly typical examples : the Respondent in CAAR 8/2007 was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years and a fine of $20,000; the Respondent in CAAR 9/2007 was sentenced to 200 hours of community service. Both cases were dealt with in the Magistrates Court. We shall go into their cases in more detail later. It suffices for now merely to record that at the conclusion of the hearing before us, we indicated that in any event, we would not be disturbing the sentences the Respondents received, in view of the fact that they appeared to have been sentenced under what might loosely be called the prevailing sentencing practice. Classification of child pornography 4.The PCPO (in section 2) defines child pornography and pornographic depiction in the following way : - “ ‘child pornography’ (兒童色情物品) means -
A child is a person under the age of 16. 5.The pornographic depiction of children covers a fairly broad spectrum. We have found useful the following classification levels adopted in England for the purposes of sentencing (see R v Mark David Oliver and Others [2003] 2 Cr App R 64) : -
6.These classification levels were used by the prosecution in both of the present cases : -
7.While finding the Oliver classification useful, we would prefer to adopt the following four classification levels instead (the reason being that we see little difference between Levels 4 and 5 in the Oliver classification) : -
Relevant considerations in sentencing for offences under section 3(3) of the PCPO 8.Section 3 of the PCPO creates four categories of offences relating to child pornography : -
9.The aim of the PCPO is principally the protection of children from being exploited and abused for the purpose of pornography. The exploitation is of the worst kind : children, many of them are well under the age of 16, are made to pose or be filmed while exposing their genitals, anal region and other private parts; children are depicted in the most adult of sexual activity and conduct; children are depicted in states of distress; even sadism and bestiality are often shown. 10.We have been, in these reviews, provided with some of the images found in the possession of the Respondents. They are nothing short of disgusting and demonstrate a depravity that causes revulsion, and, within society, we are sure they would be regarded as simply and totally unacceptable. Words fail to describe the sense of revulsion, which is to be experienced from viewing these images. In this regard, we lay emphasis on the importance of the sentencer examining the images or, at the very least, a representative sample, so that their true nature and gravity is made apparent. 11.As can be seen from the debates in the Legislative Council preceding the introduction of the PCPO, its roots lie in Article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (which applies to Hong Kong) protecting children against all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. Article 34 states : -
12.From the above, it can instantly be seen that the main aspect relevant to sentencing for offences under section 3 of the PCPO will be one of deterrence. This has two facets which have to be considered : first (and the more important), the protection of the victims of child pornography, namely the exploited children themselves; secondly, society generally. 13.The same factors which point to the necessity of legislation to deal with child pornography are also relevant when considering the deterrence element we have identified above. Here, we have found of guidance the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Sharpe (2001) 150 CCC (3d) 321, particularly the passages at paragraphs 28, 86-92, 158-165, 199-209. There, the court was faced with a challenge to legislation prohibiting the possession of child pornography on the basis of an unjustifiable restriction of the freedom of expression. The Supreme Court held that such legislation was constitutional. 14.The following considerations are relevant : -
15.It is with the above considerations in mind that we are of the view that the deterrence factor becomes particularly significant when sentencing for the offence of possession of child pornography. 16.In our view, possession of child pornography should generally attract an immediate custodial sentence unless special circumstances exist. One such circumstance may be that the quantity of pornographic material at Level 1 (for the classification levels see paragraph 7 above) may be so small as to make the amount in the possession of the accused de minimis. In sentencing, one starts by having regard to the appropriate level of the relevant depictions (this can be a photograph, film, computer-generated image or any other visual depiction). Also relevant would be whether the depictions were of real children or whether they were artificially created (see Oliver at paragraph 15). In the latter respect, obviously no real persons would be involved (unless they were based on real children) but it would be important to consider all the circumstances, such as whether the depictions might or would fall into the hands of other people. The sentencer will of course take into account all relevant factors. Some factors in mitigation or aggravation are set out below. Guidelines 17.We have in mind the following guidelines appropriate, after trial, to a first time offender who is in possession of child pornography (involving real children) : -
18.The four levels of sentence set out in the previous paragraph provide starting points for sentence after trial. As in any other case, there may be mitigating or aggravating factors that will have to be taken into account. 19.The principal mitigating factor will be a timely plea of guilty but the usual principles of sentencing will otherwise apply. 20.Aggravating features would include the following : -
21.It is important to stress that we are, in the two cases now before us, solely concerned with offences of possession of child pornography. Higher maximum sentences are provided under section 3(1) and (2) of the PCPO where more than mere possession is involved. The principles as applied to the facts in the present reviews 22.We have earlier indicated that in any event we would not be disturbing the sentences passed against the two Respondents in the present reviews. It might, however, be useful to indicate what sentences we would have had in mind in cases like theirs if the above guidelines had been applicable. 23.In the case of the Respondent in CAAR 8/2007, aged 31 at the time of sentencing, we have set out the number of images and the applicable levels which formed the subject-matter of the charge against him (see paragraph 6(1) above). The following additional facts are also relevant : -
24.The quantity of child pornography in CAAR 8/2007 was large. There were also many images in Levels 3 and 4. Given this and the other factors set out above, we would have thought that an immediate sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate after trial in the District Court. We do not consider that a case of this gravity should have been tried in the Magistrates Court where the maximum sentence would have been 2 years, albeit there would of course have been a reduction by one-third on account of the guilty plea. 25.The following facts are relevant to the Respondent in CAAR 9/2007 aged 20 at the time he was sentenced (the images and their levels are set out in paragraph 6(2) above) : -
26.In the case of the Respondent in CAAR 9/2007, we are of the view that as he was under 21 when he was convicted, and assuming that a Training Centre report had certified him to be a suitable candidate, a Training Centre order would have been appropriate. However, if he had attained the age of 21 when he was convicted, a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate. Postscript 27.The facts in the two reviews were plainly not the worst that can come before the courts, although they were very serious. The downloaded images were, after all, only for the personal use of the Respondents. If the images had been intended for publication, distribution or sale, the sentences would have been significantly higher. Nevertheless, in our view the facts in the two reviews were extremely serious. In future, we would recommend, based on similar factual situations, that prosecutions of offences of this gravity should take place in the District Court, particularly where, as seen in CAAR 8/2007, there has been a previous conviction for an offence involving a child. 28.It is possible that some may regard the above guidelines as on the harsh side. However, given the nature of the offence, they need to be. While some may argue that in the end, the only people harmed are those who possess this sort of material in the privacy of their homes, this is much too narrow a view. The courts are obliged to take into account broader considerations, the main one here being the protection of vulnerable children. 29.For the reasons we have given, we shall allow both applications for a review. The sentences in each case were manifestly inadequate. However, the guidelines we have given, which will in future lead to considerably increased sentences for offences of this kind, can only apply to offences committed after this judgment has been given. We do not, therefore, as we have indicated, propose to increase the sentences imposed on the Respondents.
CAAR 8/2007 Mr I Grenville Cross, SC, DPP, Ms Chan Wing Han Agnes & Ms Lam Wing Sai Vinci of the Department of Justice for the Applicant Mr C S Fu, instructed by Messrs Andrew Chan & Co for the Respondent CAAR 9/2007 Mr I Grenville Cross, SC, DPP, Ms Chan Wing Han Agnes & Ms Lam Wing Sai Vinci of the Department of Justice for the Applicant Mr John McNamara, instructed by Messrs Chan & Tsu for the Respondent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chung Kai Yeung v. HKSAR
HKSAR v. Chan Kin Lik
HKSAR v. Ng Tsz Lung
HKSAR v. Hui Wai Fung
香港特別行政區 訴 陳文東
HKSAR v. Yau Yan Kit
香港特別行政區 訴 孫俊琰
HKSAR v. Lo Cheuk Hung
香港特別行政區 訴 陳百宏
HKSAR v. Tsang Cho Kiu
香港特別行政區 訴 區立仁
香港特別行政區 訴 卓家民及四人
香港特別行政區 訴 古作棋
HKSAR v. Lee Man Ho
HKSAR v. Lai Wai Sing and Another
HKSAR v. Wong Koon Chow, Eddy
香港特別行政區 訴 楊漢基 Ricky
香港特別行政區 訴 黃學恆
HKSAR v. Chan Wing Yiu
HKSAR v. Choy Ka Leung
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAAR 8/2007