HKSAR v. YE HAI YAN

HKSAR v. YE HAI YAN

The appeal was allowed in part because, applying established sentencing principles (including deterrence, mitigation for early guilty plea and personal circumstances) and having regard to the need for consistency with sentences imposed on co-defendants, the original concurrent sentences of 14 months were excessive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. YE HAI YAN
Parties
Appellant: D7; Respondent: HKSAR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 January 2004
Case Number
HCMA911/2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Copyright Offence / Appeal Against Sentence (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Possession for Purpose of Trade, Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Sentencing Consistency and Disparity
Source Language
en
Copyright Law Criminal Law Sentencing Law Copyright Infringement Possession for Purpose of Trade Sentencing Principles Mitigation Sentencing Consistency and Disparity

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D7

Appellant

HKSAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Copyright Offence / Appeal Against Sentence (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors (short period of participation, small quantity of discs, role as employee)
  2. 2 Whether the sentence of 14 months was manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Whether sentencing consistency with co-defendants required reduction

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because, applying established sentencing principles (including deterrence, mitigation for early guilty plea and personal circumstances) and having regard to the need for consistency with sentences imposed on co-defendants, the original concurrent sentences of 14 months were excessive and should be reduced to concurrent terms of nine months imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Set aside sentences of 14 months imprisonment and substitute sentences of nine months imprisonment in respect of each offence, such sentences to be served concurrently
  • Convictions upheld