Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Hksar v Tseung Lung Kan

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date27 September 2001
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberHCMA723/2001
Subject MatterMagistracy Appeal
HCMA000723/2001 HKSAR v. TSEUNG LUNG KAN

HCMA000723/2001

HCMA 723 & 724/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NOS. 723 & 724 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 1819 & 2055/2001)

____________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
TSEUNG LUNG KAN Appellant

____________

Coram: Hon V Bokhary J in Court

Date of Hearing: 27 September 2001

Date of Judgment: 27 September 2001

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. On 27 June 2001, this Appellant, a man in his mid-forties, appeared before Henry Mierczak Esq. in the Eastern Magistracy on two charges of possession of obscene articles for the purpose of publication, contrary to section 21(1)(b) of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance, Cap. 390. He pleaded guilty to both charges. Both offences were committed at the same shop in Wan Chai. The earlier offence was committed on 29 May 2001. The later offence was committed on 21 June 2001. Each time the obscene articles consisted of VCDs: 2,921 of them on the earlier occasion and 3,066 of them on the later occasion. The articles were obscene but, as the learned Magistrate assessed them, were "at their lower end of the scale" of obscenity.

2. For the earlier offence, the learned Magistrate took a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment and discounted it to 12 months' imprisonment for the guilty plea. The later offence was committed while the Appellant was on bail for the earlier offence. The Magistrate took a starting point of 21 months' imprisonment and discounted it to 14 months' imprisonment for the guilty plea. He made the two terms partly concurrent and partly consecutive so as to arrive at a total of 19 months' imprisonment. He also imposed fines of $20,000 for each offence, making a total fine of $40,000. The Appellant now appeals against sentence.

3. Five Perfected Grounds of Appeal have been filed on his behalf. They read:

"1. The learned Magistrate erred and was wrong in principle to impose total fine of $40,000 on the appellant when the appellant had been unemployed before the commission of the offence and had been relying on public assistance.

2. The learned Magistrate already imposed very long imprisonment sentence, it was wrong in principle to impose heavy fine on him.

3. The learned Magistrate erred to impose such a fine which was beyond the defendant's financial capacity to pay.

4...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT