R. v Lam Kap Shing

Court:Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:CACC199/1995
Judgment Date:10 Jan 1996
CACC000199/1995 R. v. LAM KAP SHING

CACC000199/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.199
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN Respondent
AND
LAM KAP SHING Applicant

----------------

Coram: Hon Yang, C.J., Bokhary, J.A. and Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 10 January 1996

Date of judgment: 10 January 1996

-------------------------

J U D G M E N T

-------------------------

Bewley, J.: (Giving the judgment of the Court)

1. The applicant was convicted of living on the earnings of prostitution and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment by Judge Bailey. He now applies for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

2. He was one of six defendants charged with this and related offences.

3. In December, 1993, the victim, Ma Pui-ching, worked at a Mongkok karaoke club. She became indebted to the club in the sum of $30,000 and this debt was settled on her behalf by her friend Ah Chung.

4. She was taken by Ah Chung to a restaurant and introduced to the 1st defendant. Ah Chung proposed that she work for the 1st defendant as a prostitute. The 1st defendant would reimburse Ah Chung from her earnings. The victim, Miss Ma, refused but Ah Chung insisted. She was then taken to a flat by the 1st defendant and was told that she would be credited with $160 for each client. She was detained and told that she could leave only when the debt was paid off. At the flat were sleeping the six defendants, two of their girl friends and two other prostitutes.

5. The 3rd defendant escorted the victim to various Mongkok villas, where she provided sexual services, for which payment was made to the 3rd defendant at the villas, either directly by the client, or via the victim. Sometimes she was escorted by the 5th defendant. On average she received 10 customers a day.

6. On one occasion she saw the 3rd defendant hand money earned that day from prostitution to the applicant, who in turn handed it to the 1st defendant. There is no evidence that any of the money was used to pay off the debt to Ah Chung.

7. On 8th January, 1994, the police raided the flat where the victim and the other girls were kept. The applicant and the other defendants were arrested.

8. The applicant did not give evidence or call witnesses.

9. In his Reasons for Verdict, dated and delivered on 1st March, 1995, the date of the conviction, the judge stated in error that the victim...

To continue reading

Request your trial