THE QUEEN v. LI TUNG HING

THE QUEEN v. LI TUNG HING

The court held that although the Magistrate was justified in concluding the original fines were manifestly inadequate given abuse of a position of trust, the exceptional circumstances (protracted and traumatic proceedings, guilty plea, contrition, long good character, stable employment and the passage of time) made immediate custody disproportionate; exercising s.119(1)(d) the High Court substituted a fine of HK$2,500 on each count (total HK$5,000) in place of the one‑month terms of imprisonment on each count, payable within 14 days.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. LI TUNG HING
Parties
Respondent (crown): THE QUEEN; Appellant/defendant: LI TUNG HING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 May 1993
Case Number
HCMA197/1993
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal Sentence Review) / Appeal to High Court From Magistrate's Review of Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; one month imprisonment on each of two counts set aside and substituted with fines of HK$2,500 on each count (total HK$5,000) payable within 14 days.
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Position of Trust, Review of Sentence, Sentencing Principles (deterrence)
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Sentencing Appeals Indecent Assault Position of Trust Review of Sentence Sentencing Principles (deterrence)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent (crown)

LI TUNG HING

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal Sentence Review) / Appeal to High Court From Magistrate's Review of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate was entitled on review to substitute immediate imprisonment for previously imposed fines
  2. 2 Whether an immediate custodial sentence was proportionate in all the circumstances and necessary for deterrence
  3. 3 Whether the High Court should exercise s.119(1)(d) to vary the Magistrate's sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the Magistrate was justified in concluding the original fines were manifestly inadequate given abuse of a position of trust, the exceptional circumstances (protracted and traumatic proceedings, guilty plea, contrition, long good character, stable employment and the passage of time) made immediate custody disproportionate; exercising s.119(1)(d) the High Court substituted a fine of HK$2,500 on each count (total HK$5,000) in place of the one‑month terms of imprisonment on each count, payable within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; one month imprisonment on each of two counts set aside and substituted with fines of HK$2,500 on each count (total HK$5,000) payable within 14 days.

Orders

  • Set aside sentences of one month imprisonment on each charge and substitute fines of HK$2,500 on each charge (total HK$5,000) payable within 14 days