HKSAR v. TAM HEI LUN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. TAM HEI LUN AND OTHERS

The Court declined to lay down sentencing guidelines because prosecutions under s161 were too few to define the full range of offending; unauthorised access can be akin to burglary and, save in unusual circumstances, custodial sentences (including detention centre sentences) are appropriate for offences under s161, and the detention centre sentences imposed on the 1st and 3rd appellants were not manifestly excessive.

Citation
HKSAR v. TAM HEI LUN AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: Tam Hei Lun; 2nd Appellant: Po Yiu Ming; 3rd Appellant: Mak King Lam
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 October 2000
Case Number
HCMA385/2000
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal to Court of Appeal (sentencing Review) / Hearing and Determination of Sentences; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Computer Access, Sentencing Guidelines, Detention Centre, Obtaining Access for Dishonest Gain, Dealing With Proceeds, Making Infringing Copies for Sale
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Computer Misuse Copyright Law Sentencing Unauthorised Computer Access Sentencing Guidelines Detention Centre Obtaining Access for Dishonest Gain +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Tam Hei Lun

1st Appellant

Po Yiu Ming

2nd Appellant

Mak King Lam

3rd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal to Court of Appeal (sentencing Review) / Hearing and Determination of Sentences; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should lay down sentencing guidelines for offences under section 161 Crimes Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether non-custodial sentences are appropriate for unauthorised computer access
  3. 3 Whether the Detention Centre sentences imposed on the 1st and 3rd appellants were manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to lay down sentencing guidelines because prosecutions under s161 were too few to define the full range of offending; unauthorised access can be akin to burglary and, save in unusual circumstances, custodial sentences (including detention centre sentences) are appropriate for offences under s161, and the detention centre sentences imposed on the 1st and 3rd appellants were not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Detention centre sentences for 1st and 3rd appellants upheld