HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1985

THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM LUNG

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
40673-EN-1985-09-09

THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM LUNG

HTML content

HCMA000713/1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 713 OF 1985

 

____________

THE QUEENRespondent

and

WONG KAM LUNG

Appellant

_____________

Coram: Hon. Nazareth, J.

Date of Hearing: 6th September 1985

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 9th September 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. The trial magistrate obviously approached the matter of sentence in this case with great care. I accept his implicit view that 6 months imprisonment would ordinarily be appropriate, and that if there were an aggravating factor, for instance the involvement of young people as customers or prostitutes, as in this case, a somewhat longer term might be called for. Accordingly the sentence of 9 months imprisonment would not of itself appear to be manifestly excessive.

2. However, it is combined with a fine of $5,000 which represents the applicant's salary for 2 months. In receiving a salary of $2,500 per month for the hours he worked as an employee and apparently nothing more, I do not think the appellant can be said to have been making large profits out of vice. In all the circumstances of this case including the appellant's apparent record, the absence of relevant convictions, and his ready admission of his role both to the Police and at his trial, I think the sentence is manifestly excessive. I propose therefore to reduce the term of imprisonment from 9 months to 6 months, while leaving the fine of $5,000 to stand. I accordingly allow the appeal and so order.

(G.P. Nazareth)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. T.R.W. Jenkyn-Jones Crown Counsel for DPP

The appellant in person.