Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Possession for publication for gain

Legal area

Court

19 Jun 1985

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TANG KING MING

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TANG KING MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/1985

Court refused the review because, on the facts (first offender, strong mitigation, magistrate had seen the materials and exercised discretion), the magistrate's non-custodial penalty was not manifestly inadequate; however the Court gave guidance that immediate custodial sentences with substantial fines should be the primary option for commercially sophisticated operations or where deterrence is paramount.
18 Feb 1985

THE QUEEN v. TSANG MOU YAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSANG MOU YAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA39/1985

The magistrate properly inferred that the appellant was privy to and participated in the arrangement resulting in the 15 August publication, so that conviction for that charge was supported by sufficient evidence; however there was no evidence linking the appellant to the 29 August transaction nor exclusive control or possession of tapes found on the premises, so convictions for the 29 August publishing charge and for possession for publication for gain were unsupported and must be quashed.