Court of First Instance allowed appeal against sentence for a defendant who had pleaded guilty to operating a gambling establishment

HKSAR v Ho Yuk Ching (何玉清)

11 July 2024

The Court of First Instance reduced the quantum of fine from HK$ 100,000 to HK$ 25,000 for a defendant who had pleaded guilty to operating a gambling establishment.

The Appellant was arrested and pleaded guilty to a charge of operating a gambling establishment before a Principal Magistrate. When acting in person, the Principal Magistrate (instead of letting the court interpreter interpret the full facts of the case) on his own volition “summarised” and “interpreted” the facts as follows: “the Police raided the flat…there were three mahjong tables…you guys were gambling there, correct?” (上址呢就係當日呢遭到呢個警方既掃蕩喇…上面有呢三張呢咁既電子麻雀檯…你地四個呢就係度賭緊錢。). The Appellant told the Principal Magistrate that he was illiterate, and said he did not know how to mitigate. The Principal Magistrate then sentenced him to 14 days’ imprisonment. The Appellant immediately arranged for private legal representatives to review the Principal Magistrate’s sentence. Unfortunately, the review could only take place the next day and the Appellant served 1 day of imprisonment. On the following day, after hearing submissions, the Principal Magistrate reviewed his sentence, and ordered the 14 days’ imprisonment be suspended for 3 years, but additioanlly fined the Appellant for HK$ 100,000. The Appellant appealed.

On allowing the appeal against the sentence, DHCJ Frankie Yiu noted that the Principal Magistrate did not fully interpret the Brief Facts prepared by the prosecution. Nevertheless, the Principal Magistrate used facts contained in the Brief Facts but not interpreted to the Appellant as aggravating factors justifying why he fined him for HK$ 100,000. The court disapproved of this practice. Taking into account various authorities, the CFI agreed that a fine of HK$ 100,000 is manifestly excessive. The Court allowed the appeal and reduced the fine to HK$ 25,000, to be paid within 3 months.

Simon So (with Herman Ho) represented the Appellant in the appeal against sentence. The Full Judgement was published on https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=162007&currpage=T