Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Obscenity

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 1999

HKSAR v. MOK KWOK WING

Citation

HKSAR v. MOK KWOK WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1120/1998

The appeal is dismissed: the sentencing magistrate's starting point of 12 months per offence and his decision to allow only a 25% reduction for guilty pleas were within lawful sentencing discretion given the gravity of the offences and aggravating features including reoffending on bail; the totality principle was correctly applied to result in an aggregate 12 months imprisonment and the sentences are upheld.
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.
1 Aug 1995

EASTERN EXPRESS PUBLISHER LTD. v. THE OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL

Citation

EASTERN EXPRESS PUBLISHER LTD. v. THE OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCOA3/1995

The Tribunal committed errors of law: its reasons were inadequate and demonstrated misapplication of s.10 by failing to assess context, audience and honest purpose; it misconceived the purpose of the s.29 reference and reclassification; and the refusal to disclose names of adjudicators who made an interim classification violated the open justice principle. The appropriate remedy is to remit the matters to the Tribunal to re-open and determine them in accordance with the law; costs follow the event.
22 Mar 1994

R. v. HUI SIU YAN, EDWARD AND OTHERS

Citation

R. v. HUI SIU YAN, EDWARD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCOA4/1993

The Tribunal's factual finding that the evidence did not prove the accepted moral standards of the Swedish community was within its exclusive jurisdiction and not reviewable on sufficiency; in the absence of proved foreign standards the Tribunal properly applied Hong Kong standards; evidence of legality and availability is relevant but not determinative of moral acceptability.
19 Aug 1993

HUI SIU YAN, EDWARD AND OTHERS V. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL

Citation

HUI SIU YAN, EDWARD AND OTHERS V. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCOA1/1993

The High Court cannot itself determine whether an article is obscene or indecent as that function lies with the Tribunal; the High Court may decide points of law and remit the matter to the Tribunal to re-hear or re-open proceedings in light of legal rulings. Where articles are intended for publication outside Hong Kong the Tribunal must consider the moral standards of the place of intended publication (and in the absence of such evidence apply Hong Kong standards).
31 Aug 1990

THE QUEEN v. LAM WING CHING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM WING CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA641/1990

Fines of $25,000 each were excessive and beyond the appellant's means; although a six‑month custodial sentence would be appropriate for such a bad case to achieve deterrence, the appellant is under 21 and not subject to imprisonment for non-excepted offences under s109A CPO; he is unsuitable for Detention Centre but suitable for a Training Centre; accordingly the fines are set aside and a Training Centre Order is substituted.
15 Jan 1988

CHAN HON SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN HON SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA997/1987

Although the Legislature intended that copyright offences be regarded as serious and custodial sentences are permissible post‑1975 amendment, in this particular case the appellate court found immediate custody inappropriate given past practice and fairness; the original custodial sentences were set aside and replaced with substantial fines of $10,000 and $4,000 respectively.
20 Aug 1985

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN CHUNG HO AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN CHUNG HO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA561/1985

On proper construction of s.2(1) and s.2(2) of the Objectionable Publications Ordinance, "article" includes three‑dimensional objects made to be looked at (for example statues, models and sexual novelties) because they can be 'looked at' and can be 'published' by distribution, sale, lending or exposure; therefore the magistrate was wrong in law to treat the definition as limited to flat printed or cinematic media.
24 Apr 1984

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU KAI CHEUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU KAI CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA153/1984

A certified translation of the whole publication is not a prerequisite for proceeding under the Objectionable Publications Ordinance; certified translations of extracts are sufficient to sustain charges unless the defendant raises the public good defence under Section 4(3), in which event a full translation may be required and the onus to establish the defence lies on the defendant on the balance of probabilities.