2010 12 24

Amina
Amina Amina

Amina

Amina
2001 6 24

Amina
9,000

2008 7 13

Amina
240

2010 1 27

Amina

2010 8 2

Amina
1 1 8,000

2010 8 5

2010 8 6

2010 8 8

500

2010 12 21

Amina

2010 12 22

Amina

2010 12 23

Amina

2010 12 24

Amina
5 Amina

Amina
Amina

Amina

2010 12 24

Amina
Amina

Amina

Amina

2010 12 24

Amina
1 8000 1

Amina

2010 8 23


Amina
Bokhary

mob rule
take the law into your own handlaw is in legal profession's hands,
not yours

2010 8 16

Amina

2010 8 14

Amina

63
36(b) 36(b)
63

63 Amina
Amina
4
25 36(b) 1 63

Amina
63 36(b)

Amina

63
Amina

2010 8 12

Amina Mariam Bokhary

2010 8 7

2010 8 5

A sentencing that arouses suspicion

Hong Kong's criminal justice system is firmly rooted in the belief that punishment is
only a means to an end, and that the primary aim is to ensure rehabilitation for
offenders so that they can return to society as better citizens. It is, therefore,
common to hear magistrates say they are willing to give first-time offenders a
second chance, or impose lighter sentences because the offender has pleaded guilty
and shown genuine remorse.
Magistrate Anthony Yuen Wai-ming cited her medical condition - bipolar disorder that triggers unsociable behaviour. But that was not all he cited. And here the public
has a right to expect the magistrate to show clear and logical reasoning as to why
there may be other mitigating factors so as to be assured that the decision is
objective.
Yuen began his reasons for the sentence by noting Bokhary's "good background, a
well-off family, good education and outstanding academic achievement". These
words in particular have antagonised the public who feel they have just been told
that a "good background, a well-off family, good education and outstanding

academic achievement" will buy you leniency from the courts.

It may be that the magistrates have been merely careless with their words. Indeed, a
stable family background can be an acceptable reason to believe offenders will
receive sufficient care and rehabilitation without needing to spend time in jail to
mend their ways. But that argument was conspicuously absent from the decisions,
giving the impression that a notable family background in itself will be looked upon
favourably.
In the case of Bokhary, it may be that her mental disorder alone is a sufficient
mitigating factor against a jail term. If so, then there was no need to mention her
family background or her education. The failure to show any logical connection
between family background and the sentence leaves the public with the perception
that those with a notable surname are more equal than others.
2010 8 4