HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. LAI MEL-YING

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
27901-EN-1995-08-14

THE QUEEN v. LAI MEL-YING

HTML content

HCMA000803/1995

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

  

Magistracy Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 1995

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

  

BETWEEN  
 THE QUEEN 
 and 
 LAI MEI-YING 

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

Coram: Hon. Stuart Moore, J. in Court

Date of Hearing: 14th August 1995

Date of Judgment: 14th August 1995

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. This Appellant was charged with contravening her conditions of stay as a visitor in Hong Kong. She was not allowed to take up any employment but she was found to be working as a prostitute. The police infiltrated a vice ring of which she was a member and on the clearest evidence she had to plead guilty on 22nd July 1995.

2. The learned Magistrate, Mr. James Lee, sentenced her to a total of four months' imprisonment having made his starting point six months' imprisonment which he then reduced by two months because of her clear record and her plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.

3. I am extremely grateful to counsel on both sides for having researched in some depth the sentencing policy in similar kinds of case to this. The value of the Attorney General's Chambers records is to be seen in their synopsis of some 24 cases which I have had some time now to consider and, as Mr. McMaster rightly concedes, the sentence imposed in this case does appear to be longer than any other case in this category. It is in those circumstances, having looked at the cases placed before me today which perhaps the learned Magistrate did not have the advantage of seeing, that I am able to say with some confidence that the sentence imposed was too long. In my judgment it is very difficult, with so many factors to be taken into account, to issue any tariff guidelines. Each case has to be taken on its own merits. I think the proper sentence here ought to be reduced to four weeks.

  

  

 (M. Stuart Moore)
 Judge of the High Court

  

Representation:

Mr. J. McMaster for Crown.

Mr. Petrus Chan instructed by Messrs. John Chan & Co. for Appellant.