THE QUEEN v. SZE TIN SIN

1987, No. 804

____________________

HEADNOTE

____________________

Bigamy – prison sentence proper where woman deceived and injury results – 12 months upheld

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 804 OF 1987

____________________

____________________

Dates of hearing : 8th & 15th December, 1987

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to bigamy, contrary to section 45 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

2. In 1979 the appellant married in China. He subsequently came to Hong Kong, leaving his wife behind. The marriage was never dissolved or annulled.

3. Madam HUI Kai-fong, the victim in this case, came to Hong Kong in February, 1982. She met the appellant and they became friends, but were not yet on intimate terms. They had tea and went to the cinema together.

4. In September, 1982, the appellant tried to persuade her to become a dance hostess. When she refused, he threatened to pour acid on her face and assaulted her. For these offences he was sentenced to a total of 9 months imprisonment in June, 1983.

5. On his release from prison in December, 1983, the appellant and Madam Hui registered at a marriage registry. They went through a marriage ceremony at the same registry in March, 1984. A child was born to Madam Hui in August, 1984.

6. Shortly after this, Madam Hui saw a letter from the appellant's wife, in which she sought financial assistance from the appellant. Not surprisingly their relationship deteriorated, but they continued to live together until January, 1986, when matters came to a head in a violent quarrel. Madam Hui went to the police and later to the Social Welfare Department. Eventually, with the assistance of the Legal Aid Department, she obtained a decree of nullity.

7. In R. v. Crowhurst[1] the English Court of Appeal held that sentences for bigamy must vary in accordance with the circumstances of the case. Where, there was deception of the innocent party, with some injury resulting, an immediate custodial sentence was necessary, the length depending on the gravity of the injury inflicted.

8. In R. v. Partridge[2] Yung, J. held that 15 months was excessive because due consideration had not been given to cohabitation before the bigamous marriage, the willingness of the victim to marry the appellant after the marriage, or that the fact that his marriage with the legal wife had broken up. While conceding that an immediate custodial sentence was proper, Yang, J. reduced the sentence to allow the appellant's immediate discharge.

9. In his Statement of Findings the magistrate correctly placed weight on the fact that Madam Hui had been deceived. The sentence is a substantial one, but I cannot say that it is so severe that I should interfere. The appeal is therefore dismissed.