THE QUEEN v. LOK KAM-FAT

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hunter, JA:

1. On 11 July last the applicant, LOK Kam-fat, was convicted by Deputy Judge Mckee on a charge of managing a gambling establishment contrary to s. 5 of the Gambling Ordinance. A sentence of 15 months imprisonment was imposed. The applicant is appealing against that sentence. His submission is that for a man of his age, which is 52, and of a previous good character, a term of imprisonment of that size is manifestly excessive. Mr Howard on his behalf has submitted that at the hearing of the appeal he would be arguing in favour of a fine with or without a suspended sentence.

2. One of the problems in the case was that the notice of appeal originally filed, appealed against conviction and sentence. The court was notified informally that the appeal against conviction was not proceeding and that course has been confirmed by Mr Howard today. But there has been no notice of abandonment against that part of the appeal. If that notice is given, then no doubt the remaining part of the appeal could be heard with expedition.

3. It is apparent from the papers that the judge regarded this as a serious case of gambling. The premises were the headquarters of the Reform Club in Yuen Long, which the applicant was managing. The judge's conclusion was that he was managing a gambling establishment there, in breach of the trust of the Reform Club in him. The sting of the matter to my mind was that he caused these premises to be fortified against detection by the police. Those fortifications were plainly intended to hold out sufficiently long for all evidence of gambling to be removed before the police gained entry. Bore then one police raid was abortive as a result. Following a raid on 21st October, on the judge's findings on the express instructions of this applicant, the fortifications were improved. The fortifications were only breached on 29th November, when the police resorted to some highly sophisticated detection methods. It was these detection methods which revealed the evidence upon which the police relied, and which in the judge's view revealed the truth.

4. This was therefore a serious case of gambling. Teasure of it is not known, but on the last occasion the applicant had $12,000 in his possession which the judge was minded to conclude was commission from the gambling. There is authority to which the judge referred, the decision of this court on review in Attorney General v Lee Wai Ming (1984), HKLR 324. The court said: "we do suggest that in all but minor cases under sections 5 and 7 the court should seriously consider whether an immediate custodial sentence is not appropriate possibly in addition to fine". This was plainly not a minor case.

5. In all these circumstances it seems to me that the obstacles which this applicant faces in maintaining an appeal against this sentence are very formidable, and that they are too great to justify the granting of bail to him. My ruling is that the application is refused.