THE QUEEN v. TAM YUI-KWONG

Headnote

Sentence - Living on the earnings of prostitution.

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon. Yang, C.J.:

1. Having abandoned his application for leave to appeal against conviction, the applicant continues with his application for leave to appeal against his sentence of 18 months imprisonment for the offence of being a man living on the earnings of prostituion contrary to Sec. 137(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Can. 200.

2. The applicant is 57 years of age. The prostitute is nearly 16. On or about the 31st December, 1987, she absconded from her parents' home and went to stay with the applicant (whom she called "Uncle Tam") at his home. On the 2nd January 1988 he asked her if she "would like to receive customers". Upon receiving a reply in the affirmative, the applicant said, "$140 per customer". From that day until the 7th January, 1988, she had sexual intercourse with about 20 men in the applicant's home. Each time the customer would pay the applicant and the applicant would give the young woman $140. It would appear from those facts that the suggestion of prostitution came from the applicant, willing though the young woman was.

3. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the sentence is manifestly excessive having regard to the small scale of the business and the line of authorities cited to us, namely, Attorney-General v Wong Sui-ying (1978) HKLR 184, Attorney-General v Chan Shum-fu (1985) Application for Review No. 18, and The Queen v Chu Ling-sing (1987) Criminal Appeal No. 509.

4. None of the cases cited was of very great assistance to us. We therefore adjourned the hearing to see if further researches by Mr. Cross might yield cases of greater relevance.

5. At the adjourned hearing today, Mr. Cross produced a useeful table showing that in the magistracy of the 47 cases dealt with in the first quarter of 1987 and the 56 cases in the first quarter of 1988, the sentences for living on the earnings of prostitution ranged from probation through fines to suspended sentence to immediate custodial sentence. These last ranged from 3 to 18 months the most common being between 3 and 6 months imprisonment. A number of recent Hong Kong authorities were also cited. it is impossible from the information available before this court to say there is a norm or a tariff sentence but it does seem that the 18 months imposed upon the applicant is out of line.

6. In all the circumstances, we are of the view that the appropriate sentence is one of 9 months. We therefore allow the application; treat the application as the appeal, allow the appeal to the extent indicated.