HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1991

THE QUEEN v. TSANG WAI KWAN

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
26221-EN-1991-07-24

THE QUEEN v. TSANG WAI KWAN

HTML content

HCMA000330/1991

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 1991

___________

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

AND

TSANG WAI KWAN

_____________

Coram: Hon. Barnes, J. in Court

Date of Hearing:  24 July 1991

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 24 July 1991

 

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. I have already briefly given my reasons for dismissing the appeal against conviction. In so doing, I made it clear that in my view the evidence did no more than establish that the occurrence had barely crossed the threshold of direction of a prostitute for the purposes of gain.

2. I am, therefore, of the view that this was an offence at the lowest end of the scale, and one which did not warrant a custodial sentence.

3. The appellant had no previous convictions. The only adverse comment made about her was that she did had some behavioural problem but that in itself did not warrant an order for her to be detained in a Training Centre.

4. I, therefore, allow her appeal against sentence. I quash the sentence because she has already served 3 months in detention. I simply order that she be absolutely discharged.

(E.C. Barnes)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. Paul Leung, C.C. for Crown.

Mr. Michael J. Gerber (D.L.A.) for Appellant: TSANG Wai-kwan.