24.10.2014 Views

刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice

刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice

刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

39<br />

E. MAGISTRACY APPEALS/<br />

AGAINST SENTENCE<br />

裁 判 法 院 上 訴 案 件 / 針 對 刑 罰<br />

MA 110/2004<br />

Beeson J<br />

(21.5.2004)<br />

*Leung Sun-yee<br />

#Joseph Tse<br />

NGAI<br />

Wing-keung<br />

Possession <strong>of</strong> obscene articles for publication/Imprisonment<br />

and fine imposed/Imprisonment in default <strong>of</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> fine/<br />

Enquiry as to source <strong>of</strong> bail money different from enquiry as<br />

to means to pay fine/Inquiries as to capacity essential/<br />

Defendant wrongly punished for refusing to use bail money to<br />

pay fine<br />

管 有 淫 褻 物 品 以 供 發 布 之 用 – 處 以 監 禁 及 罰 款 – 因<br />

欠 繳 罰 款 而 判 處 監 禁 – 對 保 釋 金 來 源 的 查 問 與 對<br />

支 付 罰 款 的 經 濟 能 力 的 查 問 不 同 – 查 問 支 付 罰 款<br />

的 能 力 屬 必 須 – 被 告 人 因 拒 絕 以 保 釋 金 支 付 罰 款<br />

而 遭 錯 誤 處 罰<br />

The Appellant pleaded guilty to an <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> possession <strong>of</strong><br />

obscene articles for the purpose <strong>of</strong> publication, contrary to<br />

s 21(1)(b) <strong>of</strong> the Control <strong>of</strong> Obscene and Indecent Articles<br />

Ordinance, Cap 390. He was sentenced to 10 months’<br />

imprisonment, and fined $20,000, and ordered to serve 3 months’<br />

imprisonment, consecutive, in default <strong>of</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> the fine.<br />

In his Reasons for Sentence, the magistrate noted that the<br />

Appellant has been in possession <strong>of</strong> 4,267 obscene discs, at what<br />

was described as a ‘notorious location’ for this type <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence.<br />

The Appellant, aged 51, had 31 previous convictions, including 4<br />

for similar <strong>of</strong>fences, and was in breach <strong>of</strong> a suspended sentence<br />

imposed four months earlier for a similar <strong>of</strong>fence. The magistrate<br />

considered a higher starting point for sentence was appropriate<br />

because <strong>of</strong> the Appellant’s disregard for the law and took 15<br />

months as the starting point. He then stated:<br />

I was also satisfied that an additional penalty should<br />

be imposed. I heard evidence regarding the<br />

defendant’s ability to pay a fine and was satisfied<br />

beyond reasonable doubt that the bail money was<br />

available to the defendant to dispose <strong>of</strong>.<br />

The magistrate noted that the Appellant had been convicted<br />

repeatedly in the past three years. In September 2003, he had been<br />

fined a total <strong>of</strong> $5,000, and given a sentence <strong>of</strong> 6 months<br />

suspended for 12 months for two similar <strong>of</strong>fences. He considered<br />

imprisonment was appropriate, and that on this occasion a larger<br />

fine was also appropriate.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!