HKSAR v. WILLIAMS GEORGE EDWARD

HKSAR v. WILLIAMS GEORGE EDWARD

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's sentence—a 15‑month starting point reduced by one third for a guilty plea and by one month humanitarian reduction to 9 months—was within an acceptable range given the prevalence of the offence, the legitimate aim of deterrence and the appellant's 22 prior convictions; it was not manifestly excessive.

Citation
HKSAR v. WILLIAMS GEORGE EDWARD
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: WILLIAMS GEORGE EDWARD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 February 2000
Case Number
HCMA1185/1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal Under Cap.528) / Appeal to Court of First Instance From Magistrates' Court (sentencing Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence of 9 months imprisonment confirmed.
Legal Topics
Possession for Purpose of Trade, Infringing Copies, Sentencing Principles, Guilty Plea Discount, Deterrence, Prevalence of Offending
Source Language
EN
Copyright Criminal Law Sentencing Possession for Purpose of Trade Infringing Copies Sentencing Principles Guilty Plea Discount Deterrence +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

WILLIAMS GEORGE EDWARD

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal Under Cap.528) / Appeal to Court of First Instance From Magistrates' Court (sentencing Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 9 months imprisonment was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Appropriate starting point and application of guilty plea discount
  3. 3 Whether prevalence of offence and deterrence justify sentence severity

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's sentence—a 15‑month starting point reduced by one third for a guilty plea and by one month humanitarian reduction to 9 months—was within an acceptable range given the prevalence of the offence, the legitimate aim of deterrence and the appellant's 22 prior convictions; it was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence of 9 months imprisonment confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sentence of 9 months imprisonment confirmed