HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1992

R. v. LAI SHE HUNG

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
4882-EN-1993-07-06

R. v. LAI SHE HUNG

HTML content

CACC000498/1992

THE COURT OF APPEAL

1992, No. 498
(Criminal)

____________

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
and
LAI SHE HUNG

____________

Coram: Hon. Macdougall, Litton and Bokhary, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 6 July 1993

Date of judgment: 6 July 1993

_______________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Litton, J.A.:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence imposed by the District Court on 20 November 1992 on four charges: one of managing a vice establishment, one of permitting a girl under the age of 16 to be on the premises for the purposes of prostitution and two of knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution. The judge passed concurrent sentences of 21 months in all. The starting point which the judge took in this case was two years. He had very carefully analysed the facts for the case. He adverted to the fact that the girls were willing victims and offered themselves for prostitution. He had considered all the relevant factors and whilst it might be said that the starting point of two years was on the upper end of the scale, in no way can it be said to be manifestly excessive. There are no grounds whatever in our judgment for interfering with the sentence. The application must therefore be refused.

(Neil Macdougall)(Henry Litton)(K. Bokhary)
Justice of AppealJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr. A.A. Bruce, SACP, for Respondent