HKSAR v. WONG HING LAM

HCMA000069/2004

HCMA 69/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 19607/2003)

____________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	AND
	WONG HING LAM	Appellant

____________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 28 January 2004

Date of Judgment: 28 January 2004

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant pleaded guilty to operating a gambling establishment. He appeals against the sentence of 3 months' imprisonment and a fine of $15,000 which the Magistrate imposed. He complained that the sentence is too severe because he was fined as well as being imprisoned and said he should not be given a double penalty.

2. The Magistrate, in his Reasons for Sentence, pointed out this gambling operation was more sophisticated than is normally the case. It was quite a substantial operation. This Appellant had a lengthy record of previous convictions, five of which related to gambling and two of which were operating unlawful gambling establishment. The latest conviction for operating an unlawful gambling establishment was in March 2002, when he had been sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment.

3. The Magistrate noted that this gambling operation took place in the area around the fruit market in Yau Ma Tei; it is obviously an offence prevalent in the area. He noted the various sentencing principles that operate in relation to these offences and he considered that a fine as well as imprisonment should be imposed. He noted too that as a fine was imposed as part of the penalty, that should be taken into account when he was fixing the appropriate length of the prison sentence.

4. The initial starting point he considered was 6 months' imprisonment given the Appellant's previous history of similar offences. As he was going to impose a fine, he adopted a starting point of 41/2 months, gave the Appellant credit for his plea of guilty and reduced it to 3 months' imprisonment. He imposed a fine of $15,000.

5. There is nothing excessive, or wrong in principle with the sentence imposed by the Magistrate. Quite clearly, previous sentences have failed to deter the Appellant. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

	(C-M Beeson)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance

Representation:

Mr Harish Melwaney, SGC, of Department of Justice, for Respondent

Wong Hing Lam, Appellant, in person