HKSAR v. AU KAM YUI
- Citation
- HKSAR v. AU KAM YUI
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 8 March 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal to High Court (appellate Jurisdiction) From KTCC 6607 of 2006
- Case number
- HCMA1111/2006
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 8 March 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal to High Court (appellate Jurisdiction) From KTCC 6607 of 2006
- Case number
- HCMA1111/2006
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellate court held the magistrate's starting point of 18 months was excessive given the totality of the circumstances and comparative authorities; allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to eight months imprisonment on a revised starting point of twelve months.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced.
Orders
- Allow the appeal
- Reduce sentence to eight months imprisonment on a starting point of twelve months
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Ms Tsang Oi Kei Olivia, Government Counsel, Department of JusticeAU KAM YUI
Appellant Counsel: Mr Bernard Chung, assigned by the Director of Legal AidAmounts and remedies
- Original Starting Point Months: 18
- Original Sentence Months: 12
- Reduced Starting Point Months: 12
- Reduced Sentence Months: 8
- Number of Females Found: 11
- Number Illegal Immigrants: 8
- Number Two Way Permit Holders: 3
- Overstay Days: 8
- Daily Earnings Appellant: HKD 300
- Monthly Salary First Defendant: HKD 8,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal to High Court (appellate Jurisdiction) From KTCC 6607 of 2006
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate's starting point of 18 months was excessive
- 02
Whether presence of illegal immigrants and other facts constituted sufficient aggravating factors to justify the starting point
- 03
Whether disparity with sentences of co-defendants justified interference
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant submitted that the magistrate's starting point of 18 months was too high and disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued there were aggravating features: 11 females found on premises including eight illegal immigrants and three two-way permit holders (one overstayer), multiple rooms suitable for prostitution, and therefore the starting point was appropriate; cited comparable decisions showing similar or higher starting points.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court reasoning in this judgment
Presence of illegal immigrants working at premises is an aggravating factor in sentencing for running a vice establishment.
- 02
HCMA602/2001 HKSAR v. Lee Tang Yau (upheld reduction from 12 to 8 months)
A plea of guilty normally attracts a reduction in sentence.
- 03
Court reasoning in this judgment
Disparity of sentence between defendants is not by itself sufficient reason to interfere with a sentence; appropriateness of the impugned sentence is the proper inquiry.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellate court held the magistrate's starting point of 18 months was excessive given the totality of the circumstances and comparative authorities; allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to eight months imprisonment on a revised starting point of twelve months.
Obiter and limits
- Looking at previous cases is not always of assistance because facts vary
- The fact that illegal immigrants were working can attract women from across the border and is an aggravating consideration
- Sentencing comparisons with co-defendants may create grievance but do not automatically warrant interference
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced.
- Allow the appeal
- Reduce sentence to eight months imprisonment on a starting point of twelve months
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 8 March 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 8 March 2007
bjbj HCMA1111/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 6607 OF 2006) ----------------------
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and AU KAM YUI ( to the charge of managing a vice establishment and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, the learned magistrate having adopted a starting point of 18 months.
AUTONUMOUT The magistrate was of the view that there were aggravating circumstances in this case. He mentioned this in his reasons for sentence as the fact that there were eight illegal immigrants and three other Mainland women on two-way permits, who were found on the premises working as prostitutes.
AUTONUMOUT There were in fact, on the premises, 11 females who were found, eight of whom were illegal immigrants and three were two-way permit holders. Of the three who were two-way permit holders two were legitimately in Hong Kong while one had over-stayed the visa by eight days.
AUTONUMOUT The police found on the premises only one customer. There were on the premises five rooms with attached bathrooms. The appellant had worked on the premises for only a matter of 10 odd days and he was earning $300 per day.
AUTONUMOUT The complaint by Mr Chung on behalf of the appellant was that the starting point of 18 months adopted by the magistrate was too high. It is accepted by both counsel that there are no tariffs for this type of offence.
AUTONUMOUT Looking at previous cases is not always of assistance because the facts of each case may vary from one to another. However looking at five previous cases which have been helpfully tabulated into a table by Ms Tsang for the respondent, it is clear that the highest sentence imposed was one of 12 months, these were all appeal cases decided in the years 2001 to 2006.
AUTONUMOUT In the case where the sentence was reduced for the plea of guilty from 15 months to 10 months namely HCMA366/2006, HKSAR v. Lau Tai So, it is not known how many prostitutes were working on the premises.
AUTONUMOUT A somewhat similar case to the instant one is HKSAR v. Lee Tang Yau, HCMA602/2001 where the starting point adopted by the magistrate which was upheld on appeal was one of 12 months and, because of the plea of guilty, the sentence was reduced to 8 months. In that case, there were also eight illegal immigrants working on the premises, the premises had seven cubicles which could have been used and, as I have said, the sentence was reduced from 12 months to 8 months because of the plea of guilty.
AUTONUMOUT It is accepted by both counsel that the fact that there were illegal immigrants working on the premises can be an aggravating factor because, apart from anything else, it can have the effect of attracting women from across the border to come to Hong Kong to work as prostitutes.
AUTONUMOUT In the present case there is also the added factor that the 1st defendant, who was in a similar position to the appellant, pleaded guilty to the same charge before another magistrate two months after this appellant was sentenced and received a sentence of six months imprisonment on a starting point of nine months. That, as Mr Chung pointed out, is half of the sentence imposed on this appellant. Disparity of sentence is not by itself a reason for interfering with the sentence and it is the appropriateness of the sentence which is appealed against which is relevant. The 1st defendant was in a similar situation to the appellant except that he was on a monthly salary of $8,000 per month. Quite clearly, this appellant has suffered a sense of grievance because of the sentence he received. But as I have said that is not a reason for interfering with the sentence.
AUTONUMOUT However I do take the view that the starting point of 18 months adopted by the magistrate is excessive and, consequently, I allow the appeal. I reduce the sentence to one of eight months imprisonment on a starting point of 12 months. (Peter Nguyen) Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court Ms Tsang Oi Kei, Olivia, GC of Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr Bernard Chung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Appellant
PAGE -
PAGE
A
B
C
D E F 1udk 1udk &`#$ & 6" ABC.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 (C[a Judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.