24 Aug 2005
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate legitimately treated the appellant as a persistent offender, adopted appropriate starting points, properly inquired into ability to pay, and relied on comparable authorities establishing that fines together with imprisonment are permissible in these circumstances.
17 Dec 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.
20 Aug 2002
Given the substantial quantities, commercial nature of the operation, the appellant's extensive prior convictions and that offences were committed while on bail, the magistrate's overall sentence of 18 months imprisonment with fines totalling HKD 10,000 (after applying a one-third guilty plea discount and appropriate concurrency/concurrency ordering) was lawful and appropriate; the appeal is dismissed.
26 Sept 2001
The magistrate's sentence of 18 months was not so severe as to warrant interference; she appropriately applied the totality principle, gave credit for mitigation, and was entitled to treat child pornography as a significant aggravating factor.
24 Nov 2000
Given the appellant's persistent record, the large quantity of obscene VCDs seized and the proximity to his prior offending, the sentencing magistrate did not err in his assessment or in imposing concurrent 12 month custodial sentences with $5,000 fines; the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
26 Jan 2000
The appeal was dismissed: the magistrate’s elevated starting point and resulting sentence of 10 months imprisonment were justified by the substantial proliferation of obscene VCD trade and the need for deterrence, the magistrate’s practical constraints on viewing materials were acceptable provided agreed descriptions are construed favorably within their terms, and the costs order of $5,000 was lawful because the appellant’s late, unnotified guilty plea wasted prosecutorial and police resources.
1 Dec 1999
The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate's choice of a 15‑month starting point (based on prevalence and a prior conviction), application of a one‑third guilty plea discount, and resulting 10‑month sentence were within the appropriate sentencing range and not demonstrably excessive.
1 Dec 1999
The Magistrate correctly applied sentencing principles: adopting a 12-month starting point from guideline cases, giving full credit for the guilty plea to reach 8 months imprisonment, and lawfully imposing a costs order given the pre-trial arrangements and last-minute plea; the sentence and costs order were not outside the proper exercise of discretion, so the appeal is dismissed.
8 Oct 1999
A magistrate may rely on defendants' s.65C admitted facts to find existence and level of obscenity without personally viewing tapes; the number of VCDs sold is only one factor among many and does not preclude a significant custodial starting point where the trade is prevalent and deterrence is required; the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and appeals are dismissed except where an erroneous calculation of plea discount required reduction of one sentence from nine to eight months.
8 Oct 1999
Where defendants admit obscenity by s.65C admitted facts and there is sufficient material to determine level, a magistrate is not obliged to watch every offending VCD; the number of items sold to undercover officers is only one factor and does not automatically mandate a substantially lower sentence; given the prevalence of the trade and need for deterrence the Magistrate's adoption of the higher starting point was not manifestly excessive and immediate custodial sentences were justified; appeals dismissed except HCMA704/99 where sentence reduced to reflect correct plea discount.