HKSAR v. HSE SE-MING

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 248 OF 1997

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The appellant who was D1 was convicted after trial before a magistrate of a charge of managing a vice establishment. He was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and appeals against his conviction. The particulars of the offence are as follows:-

"HSE Se-ming, you are charged that on the 27th day of December, 1996, at Room 34, 2/F., Tung Lok Mansion, Nullah Road, Tung Choi Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, you did manage the said premises which was being kept as a vice establishment."

2. Three civilian witnesses were called to give evidence that on 27 December 1996 each of them went to the premises with the express intention of obtaining sexual services from prostitutes. One of them had been there 3 to 4 times for that purpose in 1996 and he identified D2 as the person who greeted him on previous visits and offered him the services of prostitutes. For girls from South East Asia the price was $280 and for local Chinese girls $360. D2 was convicted of a charge of assisting in the management of a vice establishment. Two of the three men were provided with prostitutes on the premises. A fourth man, an undercover policeman went to the premises at 7:55 p.m. and was met by D2 who offered him a Thai prostitute for $280 or a local Chinese prostitute for $360. The service included oral sex. He was taken to room No.5 but D1 who was present said that he would not do business with the undercover policeman. This officer left the premises and returned with other officers shortly afterwards. They searched the premises under a warrant. D1 said to the undercover officers: "It really was an undercover operation, it was me who refused to do business with you." He told another officer: "I am the person in charge of the premises - everything, arrange room, collect money, call people" - that he "called Ma Foo when need to look for prostitutes." Under caution for managing premises kept as a vice establishment, he said: "I know it and admit I work here. I'm not afraid to admit it." D2 was at the counter when the police entered. He said under caution: "I am a helper here only, please give me a chance." Articles including transaction records and over 300 condoms were seized from the premises.

3. The appellant did not give evidence or called any witness. Nor did D2.

4. The magistrate evaluated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with great care and found them to be honest and reliable and accepted their evidence. He found the charge proved.

5. I am satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to prove all the ingredients of the offence and hence the charge against the appellant.

6. The appeal is dismissed.