28 Sept 2011
The learned Magistrate properly applied the precedent starting point for serious obscene publication offences and lawfully took into account the high degree of obscenity, the large quantity of discs seized and the appellant's extensive relevant criminal history; the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
5 May 2009
The court allowed the review, quashed the magistrate's order suspending the 6‑month sentence and substituted a 5‑month immediate custodial term because the magistrate's decision to suspend relied on mitigation portraying the respondent as vicariously liable and absent from Hong Kong; that mitigation was false and had materially misled the sentencing court, and suspension was not justified for an offence of this gravity.
1 Aug 2002
Because the magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for her verdict, the conviction was unsafe; the appeal is allowed, the convictions quashed and a retrial ordered despite the appellant's objection given the strength of the prosecution evidence.
14 Nov 2000
The Court of First Instance held the magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion: given the large quantity of obscene articles, the notorious location and the appellant's extensive relevant previous convictions establishing persistence, the starting point of two years and a one‑third reduction for plea produced a sentence which, although on the high side, was not one the court could properly interfere with; appeal dismissed.
15 Dec 1998
Each individual nine month sentence was not wrongly principled or manifestly excessive, but applying the totality principle the cumulative sentence of 14 months was manifestly excessive; the appropriate adjustment was to reduce the consecutive element so that Appeal No.1024 is consecutive to Appeal No.1023 for one month only.
2 May 1997
Immediate custody was justified by the exploitative nature of the material, but the sentence was reduced from nine to six months because the appellant's culpability (employee selling a single magazine) was materially lower than his co-accused's (possession of 554 magazines and 52 tapes), and the court must not leave a defendant with a justifiable sense of grievance.
4 Jun 1996
The magistrate did not err in principle by declining to view the tapes and assessing depravity on the admitted description; given the commercial operation, the number of tapes and evidence that the trade was flourishing, a custodial sentence of four months for possession for publication was within proper sentencing range and not manifestly excessive.