HKSAR v. WANG FANG LING

HCMA 635/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 1245/2002)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was convicted by Mr I S C Candy at Eastern Magistracy, after trial during which she was represented, of a charge of soliciting for an immoral purpose in a public place and sentenced to serve 3 months imprisonment. She appealed the conviction, but has since abandoned that. She appeals the sentence.

2. The prosecution witness said that the Appellant accosted him at the intersection of Luard and Jaffe Roads, Wanchai, and offered to have sexual intercourse with him if he paid her $1,500.00. He agreed. They repaired to a nearby hotel. He paid her the moneys. She was arrested.

3. The Magistrate recorded that this offence is one that is prevalent and that the place where this offence occurred is notorious for offences of this nature. Those are matters to which he is fully entitled to have regard. It is well settled that a Magistrate may properly have regard to situations which prevail in his area of jurisdiction. Nothing more than that was done in this instance. This Magistrate sits in Court 1 of this Magistracy on a daily basis and has done so for a substantial period. He is entitled to rely on his daily experience.

4. He also expressed the view that offences of this nature have serious implications for public health in Hong Kong. That is purely a commonsense observation.

5. The maximum period of imprisonment is 6 months together with a fine of up to $10,000.00. A short immediate custodial sentence even for those of clear record is within current sentencing practise for these offences and has been for some years. Two months imprisonment on a plea of guilty, indicating three months after trial, is commonplace. Not just in Eastern Magistracy either. That other Magistrates have imposed shorter periods of imprisonment on first offenders and that those shorter sentences have been confirmed on appeal is of minimal relevance. The question is whether this sentence is either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It is neither. The sentence is proper, if robust.

6. The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant has been on bail pending appeal. She is to be returned to custody.