THE QUEEN v. WONG YIN CHUNG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 822 OF 1988

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of publishing an indecent article contrary to section 27 of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Article Ordinance and to another charge of publishing an obscene article contrary to section of that ordinance .

2. The learned Magistrate convicted and fined him the sum of $2,000 on each charge. The appellant appeals against each sentence on the ground that it is excessive

3. The learned Magistrate in his reasons for sentence, after quoting the maximum penalty for an offence under section 27 which is a fine of $2m dollars and imprisonment for 12 months, said that he thought the starting point for an offence of this kind where 16 items were involved, was a fine of $5,000; and, in relation to the second offence where the maximum penalty is a fine of $lm and imprisonment for 3 years, that again, a starting point of a fine of $5,000 was appropriate.

4. In each case because of the appellant's clear record and his plea of guilty, the Magistrate reached the conclusion that $2,000 was the appropriate fine.

5. The appellant complains that his inquiries reveal that dealers who published more articles than he had were fined $500.

6. Mr. Wong, who appears for the respondent,  informs me that his instructions are that the normal range of fines in these cases in the magistracies is $500 to $1,000.

7. As that appears to be the tariff set in the Magistracy, I think that the appellant has grounds for complaint.I therefore quash the sentence and in lieu thereof impose a fine of $500 in each case.