Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indecency

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2007

COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD
Court

Obscene Articles Tribunal
Case number

OATD30/2006

The tribunal held that both articles were indecent because the photographs of a half‑naked model with breasts given prominent, large display combined with vivid, titillating text and wide readership made them unsuitable for publication to juveniles; publishers' intentions (except honest purpose) and prior classified materials are irrelevant, and the prosecution discharged the beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard that the articles were indecent under section 2B and section 10 guidance.
20 Sept 2007

COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY v. THE SUN NEWS PUBLISHER LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY v. THE SUN NEWS PUBLISHER LTD
Court

Obscene Articles Tribunal
Case number

OATD31/2006

Both articles are indecent because the photographs were prominently displayed, depicted a half-naked woman in titillating and glorifying terms, reached a wide and juvenile-capable readership, and were therefore unsuitable for publication to juveniles under s.2B; publishers' intentions (aside from honest purpose) are irrelevant and prior classification comparisons are excluded.
2 May 1997

MING PAO NEWSPAPERS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY

Citation

MING PAO NEWSPAPERS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCOA1/1997

The tribunal erred in law by applying an "indispensability" test to require that a pictorial part be essential to the text to qualify as an honest purpose under s.10(1)(e); honest purpose may include use of a photograph to attract or inform readers but the degree, size and adequacy of obfuscation of offending nudity must be assessed for justification. The tribunal's determination is set aside and the matter is remitted for rehearing with directions accordingly.
3 Mar 1997

ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD. v. COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY

Citation

ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD. v. COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCOA3/1996

The Tribunal's stated reasons that the articles violated community standards of morality and that their dominant effect was indecent were adequate; absent Wednesbury unreasonableness the High Court will not overturn the Tribunal's factual determinations, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
2 Jul 1996

EAST TOUCH PUBLISHER LTD. v. THE TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY

Citation

EAST TOUCH PUBLISHER LTD. v. THE TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCOA1/1996

The appeal is dismissed: the Tribunal’s majority decision that the article was indecent was open to it on application of the statutory s10(1) criteria; the Tribunal cannot decide a s29(2) indecency referral by reference to the s8(2)(b) classification scheme; parties to the appeal must be those from the original proceedings (TELA substituted for the Tribunal); and proof of possible harm is not a prerequisite to establish indecency under the statute.
26 Jul 1993

SUM MUI TAI AND ANOTHER V. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL

Citation

SUM MUI TAI AND ANOTHER V. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2641/1993

A magistrate must make a formal, precise referral under s.29; the prosecution's informal restriction of the referral to parts of the signboard deprived the Tribunal of considering the 'matter as a whole' and the relevant statutory factors in s.10(1), rendering the Tribunal's decision legally flawed and requiring the Tribunal to rehear the matter.

Hong Kong Case Law

COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY v. ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD

COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY v. THE SUN NEWS PUBLISHER LTD

MING PAO NEWSPAPERS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY

ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LTD. v. COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY

EAST TOUCH PUBLISHER LTD. v. THE TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY

SUM MUI TAI AND ANOTHER V. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL