HKSAR v. LEE PUN WOO

HCMA000643/2000

HCMA641, 642, 643 & 644/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 641, 642, 643 & 644 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 262, 426, 543 & 579 OF 2000)

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

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	AND
	LEE PUN WOO	Appellant

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

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Tong in Court

Date of Hearing: 11 August 2000

Date of Judgment: 11 August 2000

 

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

1. The appellant was charged in four different cases of offences relating to the sale of infringing copies of video and music discs. The first offence took place on 13 April 1999 in a shop in Kwai Chung Plaza; the second offence took place on 20 April 1999 in the same shop; the third offence took place on 15 July 1999 in the same shop; and the fourth offence took place on 20 August 1999, again in the same shop. The appellant pleaded guilty to all the offences. He was sentenced to a term of 18 months and a fine of $9,000. He sought to appeal against the sentence.

2. The learned magistrate had adopted 12 months as the starting point in each case. Having deducted the discount for the guilty plea, he imposed a term of six months for each offence. He ordered that three of the six-month terms be consecutive and the last one be concurrent, therefore the total sentence was 18 months. As to the fine, having confirmed with defence counsel, the magistrate ordered that the amount be taken from the cash bail and the balance to be returned to the appellant.

3. In each of these cases, the appellant admitted to be the proprietor of the shop and the number of discs involved was significant. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant only argued that as he had already been imprisoned, he should not be fined as well.

4. I was not persuaded that the sentence, i.e. the 18 months and $9,000, was in any way excessive or wrong in principle for this appellant, who was the proprietor, and had, within a few months, repeatedly committed similar offences at the same premises.

5. I would dismiss the appeal.

 

 

 

Representation:

Mr Cheung Wai Sun, Atg. PGC, for DPP/Respondent

Appellant in person