Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. AU KAM YUI

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Justice

AU KAM YUI

Appellant Counsel: Mr Bernard Chung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid

Amounts 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

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal to High Court (appellate Jurisdiction) From KTCC 6607 of 2006

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 01

    Court reasoning in this judgment

    Presence of illegal immigrants working at premises is an aggravating factor in sentencing for running a vice establishment.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 8 March 2007

HKSAR v. AU KAM YUI

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

HCMA1111/2006 (this appeal)

Case cited

KTCC 6607 of 2006 (magistrates' court origin)

Case cited

HCMA366/2006 HKSAR v. Lau Tai So

Case cited

HCMA602/2001 HKSAR v. Lee Tang Yau

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.