10 Jul 2009
The magistrate's sentencing choices, including concurrent custodial terms and fines, were appropriate and not manifestly excessive given the quantity of obscene DVDs, commercial nature of the enterprise and need for deterrence; the one-third guilty plea discount was correctly applied, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
30 Jan 2004
The magistrate did not err in principle in imposing 8 months imprisonment and a $20,000 fine (with 3 months default) because the starting point of 12 months was lenient given the large quantity of items and the appellant's prior similar offence and long record; the plea discount was applied; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was appropriately deterrent.
28 Jan 2004
The Court held the Magistrate did not err in principle or impose an excessive sentence: the operation was substantial and sophisticated, the appellant's relevant prior convictions warranted a starting point of six months reduced to four months because a fine was to be imposed and further reduced to three months for the guilty plea; the combination of imprisonment and fine was not a prohibited double punishment, and the appeal was dismissed.
21 Oct 2003
The court held that the fine of $20,000 was not excessive given the circumstances (large quantity of items and the appellant's record) and that the magistrate's additional reduction of sentence for the appellant's admission of obscenity was improper because that matter falls within the plea discount; consequently the custodial sentence was increased by two months to 12 months while the fine was upheld.
27 Sept 2001
The Court held the magistrate did not err in principle or in exercise of discretion: the starting point and discounted sentence were within the appropriate range, the $20,000 fine was not necessarily beyond the appellant's means despite public assistance, and the total sentence (12 months imprisonment concurrent and $20,000 fine) was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
27 Sept 2001
The magistrate did not err in principle in imposing concurrent and consecutive terms totalling 19 months' imprisonment and fines totalling HK$40,000; the combined sentence was within the appropriate range for large-scale possession of obscene VCDs and the appellant's unemployment and receipt of public assistance did not render the fines beyond his means given the magistrate's consideration of all circumstances.
10 Apr 2001
The Court upheld the starting point of 18 months imprisonment for a persistent offender and allowed a one-third reduction for the guilty plea, producing the custodial term of 12 months; the fine was reduced from $10,000 to $5,000 because the magistrate had wrongly treated the matter as two charges when imposing the fine, but the imprisonment sentence was affirmed.
23 Feb 2000
The custodial sentences of three months for each offence, to run consecutively (total six months), were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and were upheld; however the total fine of $12,000 was excessive in the circumstances and was reduced to $6,000 (i.e. $3,000 per offence) because the magistrate did not adequately justify the earlier higher fine.
21 Oct 1999
The magistrate did not err in imposing a $5,000 fine on each appellant given the size of the deposited waste and public interest; the appeals are dismissed but payment period is extended to three months with a default term of two months' imprisonment if unpaid.
5 Feb 1999
The Court held that given the nature of the material, the flourishing trade at the location, the defendant's contribution to that trade and the defendant's substantial criminal history, deterrence justified immediate custodial sentences coupled with fines and therefore the magistrate's imposition of fines in addition to imprisonment was proper and the appeal was dismissed.