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
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.