HKSAR v. SIU MIU HING

HCMA1056/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1056 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 2660 OF 2000)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was convicted on 21 September 2000 of one charge of permitting premises to be used for the purpose of habitual prostitution, contrary to section 145(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance.

2. The facts were that on 12 May 2000 in the premises in Shaukiwen, the appellant was the tenant of the premises where two acts of prostitution took place with undercover police officers at about the same time on that day.

3. The magistrate, after a brief trial which was contested only in respect of the definition of what amounted to "habitual" prostitution, very properly found the appellant guilty. He sentenced the appellant to a period of three months' imprisonment.

4. I have had the benefit of the hearing Mr Forrest on this matter who reminds me that the maximum penalty available to the magistrate, for this particular offence was one of two years' imprisonment and a fine of $100,000 as would have been well known to the magistrate. He urges me in the light of the reformation of the character of the appellant which he put to me that I should suspend the sentence. The appellant, Mr Forrest tells me, has given up the tenancy of the premises which she occupied for the use of habitual prostitution and, severed her connection with the woman working in those premises and returned to being a housewife and residing with her husband.

5. I am told that she has been affected by the brief period of imprisonment she had in connection with this matter to the extent that the shame of imprisonment has brought her to her senses and she is now properly remorseful of what she has done.

6. This is material not before the magistrate, and given the whole of the circumstances, it seems to me now appropriate that this appeal should be allowed to the extent that the period of three months' imprisonment should be suspended for a period of two years, and that a fine of $14,000 be imposed upon the appellant.

7. To that extent, the appeal is allowed. The appellant will have one month to pay the fine of $14,000, and in default of payment will serve one month's imprisonment.