HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1989

THE QUEEN v. YAU CHI KEUNG

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
23883-EN-1990-02-27

THE QUEEN v. YAU CHI KEUNG

HTML content

HCMA001597/1989

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1597 OF 1989

---------------

BETWEEN

The Queen

Respondent

 

AND

 

YAU Chi-keung

Appellant

---------------

Coram: Hon. Ryan J. In Court

Date of hearing: 27 February 1990

Date of judgment: 27 February 1990

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant plead guilty before Mr G.P. Muttrie to a charge of living on the earnings of prostitution and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, he now appeals against sentence.

2. The facts were that the appellant was found to be in a villa and introduced a Thai prostitute to an undercover police officer. He had no previous convictions of a similar nature.

3. The Magistrate stated that offences of this nature were very common in the Mongkok area and justify a sentence of general deterrence. He took nine months' imprisonment as the starting point and reduced that to six months' imprisonment for the plea of guilty.

4. Mrs Robertson who appears for the appellant submits that the Magistrate was wrong to impose a sentence of general deterrence. I disagree. The Magistrate was in the best position to know the occurrence of such offences in his area and I do not consider the imposition of a general deterrent sentence to be wrong in principle. It is further argued that if the offence did justify such a sentence, nine months' imprisonment as a starting point is too high.

5. I have been referred to the authorities of the R. v. Sui Wai Yin, M. A. 956/1989 where six months' imprisonment after trial was not found to be excessive and to R. v. Tam Yui Kwong, C. A. 323/1988 where the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment to one of nine months' imprisonment. In the latter case, there was the aggravating feature of a mature ma using a sixteen year old girl as a prostitute. The court had obtained statistics which show the most common range of sentence for this type of offence as being between three to six months' imprisonment. The appellant was involved in the operation as an usher showing customers to the rooms of the prostitutes in the villa.

6. Having regard to the degree of criminality and the authorities, I do consider that the Magistrate started at too high a figure. On the basis that six months' imprisonment would have been a proper sentence after trial, I allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of four months' imprisonment is substituted for that of the six months' imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate.

(T.J. Ryan)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Miss E. Chan, S.C.C., for Crown

Mrs E. Robertson, instructed by DLA for Appellant