- 3 the part of the judgment which emphasized that the sentence was proper when such offences were committed “whether for profit or not”. Special mention was also made of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Hong Kong is committed and that to honour that commitment, there must not only be effective laws at the state level, but appropriate sentencing at the court level. Up until the case of AG. v. TANG King-min [1986] HKLR 211, it seems that for offences such as the present (which was under the old Objectionable Publications Ordinance), the common penalty was a fine. However, in TANG’s case, the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong recognized that an immediate custodial sentence was not wrong but that comparatively short sentences may be adequate in “mild to average cases”. There have been many occasions since then for these courts to consider the appropriate sentence in such cases. It is not necessary to go through all of them suffice it to say that the general view taken seems to be that an immediate sentence varying between 4 to 6 months, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, is appropriate. S.2(2), which is part of the “Interpretation” section of Cap.390, simply says that for the purposes of the ordinance, “obscenity” and “indecency” include violence, depravity, and repulsiveness. I frankly do not think that when the legislature enacted that part, that they had ever dreamed of the possibility of someone publishing something which even came close to the sort of obscenity that I have the misfortunate of encountering here. Certainly the words “depravity” and “repulsiveness” are not strong enough to describe the contents of the articles which the Appellant had published and possessed