HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2002

HKSAR v. CHO TAT PONG

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
23800-EN-2002-12-17

HKSAR v. CHO TAT PONG

HTML content

HCMA001012/2002

HCMA 1012/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1012 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 2750/2002)

_______________

BETWEEN
HKSARRespondent
AND
CHO TAT PONGAppellant

________________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court

Date of Hearing: 17 December 2002

Date of Judgment: 17 December 2002

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. On 20th September this year you pleaded guilty to two charges, one of publishing and the other of possessing for publication, obscene articles in a shopping centre at 278 King's Road, North Point. It is, as the Magistrate observed, notorious for these activities.

2. Considering the nature of the offences, your role as disclosed in the agreed facts and the fact that you have 21 previous convictions, the four most recent being for identical offences, the Magistrate was fully entitled to take the starting points of imprisonment he did. The fine on the second charge was modest.

3. The imposition of both a fine and imprisonment is well within current sentencing practice.

4. Your appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

(A R Wright)
Deputy Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Ms Catherine Ko, SGC for Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Respondent

Appellant in person