HKSAR v. MAU TIN SANG

HCMA 1023/98 and 1024/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NOS.1023 and 1024 OF 1998

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was convicted on 29th September 1998 of publishing an obscene article and possession of obscene article for the purpose of publication. For each of these offences, he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently. They are the subjects of the appeal in Appeal No. 1023 of 1998.

2. On the same day in September, the appellant was convicted of one offence of possession of obscene article for the purpose of publication, an offence which he committed whilst on bail for the offences in the first appeal. For this further offence, he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, five months of which was to be consecutive with the sentences passed in Appeal No. 1023 of 1998, making a total sentence of 14 months' imprisonment.

3. I have considered the judgment referred to me of the HKSAR v. Tsang Biu Sum HCMA Nos. 405 and 406 of 1998, where Mayo JA, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, found for a similar offence that nine months' imprisonment was a suitable penalty. I was respect to adopt that judgment, and find that each of the sentences passed on each of the Judges faced by this appellant were neither wrongly principle nor manifestly excessive.

4. I must, however, consider the totality of the sentence and I have come into conclusion that notwithstanding the fact that the further offence was committed whilst on bail for the first two, a sentence in total of 14 months imprisonment is manifestly excessive, an appropriate overlap of sentences in what were really a continuation of the one series of offences would have been one month's imprisonment.

5. This appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence in respect of Appeal No. 1024 of 1998 is consecutive to those of Appeal No. 1023 of 1998 for a period of one month.