HUI YEUNG-CHIT v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000347/1979
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | 1979 No. 347 |
| (Criminal) |
| BETWEEN | ||
| HUI Yeung-chit | Appellant | |
AND | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.A., Trainor and Yang, JJ.
Date of Judgment: 3 August 1979
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Huggins, J.A.:
1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences of three years' imprisonment concurrent on two charges of carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years. The girl in question was only two weeks short of thirteen at the time of the incidents. The Appellant was at the time eighteen years of age.
2. The girl met the Appellant at a ballroom. She had gone there to seek employment. The two became acquainted and on the very first evening that they met the first offence took place. After that offence the Appellant accompanied the girl to an apartment house where she became a prostitute. The second offence took place a few days later.
3. It has been drawn to our attention that the keeper of the apartment house, one Cheng, was convicted of living on immoral earnings and was sentenced to a term of nine months' imprisonment suspended and, not unnaturally, a comparison was drawn between that sentence and the present sentence. It is sufficient for us to say as to that that we do not think the sentence on Cheng was one which properly indicated the seriousness of the offence of which he was convicted. We do not of course know the full circumstances but there must have been some very strong personal circumstances if that sentence can be justified.
4. It is true that this girl was actively seeking employment at a ballroom and was very easily led into being party to this offence. The learned judge was right in pointing out that the offence was created for the protection of young girls against themselves. However, he did suggest that the Appellant was responsible for introducing the girl to prostitution. It is accepted that there was no evidence to justify that conclusion. We are of opinion that this sentence is too high and we shall allow the appeal and substitute a sentence of fifteen months' imprisonment on each charge concurrent.
3rd August 1979.