Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession for publication

Legal area

Court

15 Feb 2013

香港特別行政區訴潘國強

Citation

香港特別行政區訴潘國強
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA782/2012

The appellate court held that the magistrate's adoption of a 20‑month starting point was manifestly excessive given comparative authority and the facts; an 18‑month starting point adequately reflected aggravating factors. Because no reasons were given for withholding the full one‑third guilty plea discount, the appellant was entitled to the full one‑third reduction, resulting in 12 months' imprisonment concurrent for each count.
28 Sept 2011

HKSAR v. KWAN FUN HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN FUN HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA561/2011

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.
6 Jul 2007

HKSAR v. HUI TAI KO

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI TAI KO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA263/2007

The appellant's substantial assistance to police entitled him to additional credit such that the appropriate sentence on the relevant charges was reduced from 16 months to 12 months; the material was of a relatively low degree of obscenity and the reduction reflected that and the assistance provided.
11 May 2006

HKSAR v. LAU WAI KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU WAI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA224/2006

Given the substantial quantity of obscene discs seized and established authorities setting a 9–12 month starting point with scope for higher sentences where quantity is very large, the 10 month sentence (assessed with a 15 month starting point reduced for plea) and the $5,000 fine were not excessive; appeal dismissed.
11 Apr 2006

HKSAR v. LO WAI SAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LO WAI SAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA216/2006

Appeal dismissed because the magistrate's sentencing was within the established range, was supported by the appellant's guilty plea and admissions, there were no mitigating factors warranting reduction, and the fine deducted from bail with counsel's consent was valid.
25 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUN FAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUN FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA616/2004

Given the large quantity of obscene items, the notorious nature of the outlet, the appellant's extensive prior record and the Magistrate's finding as to ability to pay, the imposed sentences of eight months imprisonment on each charge and fines of $10,000 each were appropriate and not excessive; the appeal was dismissed.
23 Jul 2003

HKSAR v. WONG MAN FONG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG MAN FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA390/2003

The appeal fails because the magistrate's acceptance of the police officer's credible evidence and rejection of the appellant's account was open to him; ownership of the shop was irrelevant and the 12‑month sentence was appropriate given the appellant's history of similar convictions.
17 Dec 2002

HKSAR v. CHO TAT PONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHO TAT PONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1012/2002

Given the nature of the offences, the appellant's role as found in agreed facts, and the existence of 21 previous convictions including four recent identical offences, the Magistrate was justified in the chosen imprisonment starting points and in imposing both a fine and imprisonment; therefore the appeal fails.
15 Nov 2002

HKSAR v. LIU BING FAT

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU BING FAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA939/2002

The appellate court upheld the magistrate's sentencing: starting points of 15 months per offence reduced by one third for guilty pleas were appropriate; fines imposed in addition to imprisonment did not constitute double punishment; concurrent sentences were justified for offences forming part of the same enterprise while a consecutive sentence was justified for a separate offence committed shortly after the first offence and custody, therefore the overall sentence and fines were not excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
18 Sept 2002

HKSAR v. WONG MAN WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG MAN WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA735/2002

Custodial sentences were appropriate and upheld but the financial penalty was improperly imposed given the appellant's lack of means, the use of bail funds (partly provided by others) and the evident effect of penalising a third party; accordingly the fine was quashed and the money ordered returned.