HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Application for Review1989

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SUEN BUN SCHU

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1987ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NG HAK YUNG AND OTHERS
  • CAAR10/1988ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM PING CHUN
  • CAAR10/1989ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG KWAI FUN AND OTHERS
  • CAAR10/1990AG v. TSE KA WAH AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR10/1991ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YAU LEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR10/1993ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SO CHIN CHIU
  • CAAR11/1987ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN KING WAI
  • CAAR11/1988ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHEUNG PIT YIU
  • CAAR11/1989ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WU CHI SING
  • CAAR11/1991ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU CHING YAU
  • CAAR11/1992ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SIT SHU NAM AND OTHERS
  • CAAR11/1993ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NG SAI MAN
  • CAAR11/1994ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN WAH TAT and Another
  • CAAR11/1995ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAW CHUNG YIN
  • CAAR11/1996ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN SIU WAI
  • CAAR1/1985ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG SAI CHEONG
  • CAAR1/1986ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN LEE KONG
  • CAAR1/1987ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DCMINIC CHEUNG KAI MAN
  • CAAR1/1989ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MAU MAN YIU
284-EN-1989-05-12

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SUEN BUN SCHU

HTML content

CAAR000007/1989

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL1989, No. 7
Application for Review

BETWEEN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Applicant

 

AND

 

SUEN BUN SCHU

Respondent

___________

Coram: Hon. Cons, V.-P., Clough, J.A. & Mortimer, J.

Date of hearing: 12 May 1989

Date of delivery of judgment: 12 May 1989

 

_______________

J U D G N E N T

_______________

 

Cons, V.-P. delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. This is an application for leave to review brought by the Attorney General with the leave of the Chief Justice given on the 2nd of this month.

2. It is really hardly necessary for us to give our reasons for allowing the review. In the court below the Magistrate, as part of the sentence for an offence contrary to Section 42(2)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115, imposed a fine of $30,000. The maximum fine for that offence on summary prosecution is one of $20,000. It follows that that part of the sentence was clearly not authorised by law and cannot be allowed to stand.

3. As the Magistrate has since indicated in his Reasons for Sentence, he would have imposed a fine of $20,000 had he realised that to be the maximum. In our view that would have been an appropriate figure in the circumstances. The Respondent is obviously a wealthy man and despite the suggestions made by Mr. Hoo on his behalf, we do not think a lesser figure is indicated.

4. For these reasons we allow the appeal and vary the sentence as far as the fine is concerned to one of $20,000; we leave the term of imprisonment untouched.

(D. Cons)

(P.G. Clough)

(J.B. Mortimer)

Vice-President

Justice of Appeal

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. G.J. Lugar-Mawson Crown Prosecutor for Applicant

Mr. Alan Hoo (M/s Tai He & Chan) for the Respondent