HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

KWOK KAM WING v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
6425-EN-1968-12-04

KWOK KAM WING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000671/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 671 OF 1968

-----------------

BETWEEN
KWOK KAM WING

Appellant

AND
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 4 December 1968

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant was convicted on his own confession on four charges of demanding money with menaces and four charges of simple larceny, those charges being related and constituting one series of transactions aimed at a single individual, and of one charge of common assault which was the result of action taken by the appellant when the victim in the previous charges refused to pay any more. On these charges the learned magistrate imposed sentences of 12 months' imprisonment on each of the first eight charges and 6 months' imprisonment on the final charge, all those sentences to run concurrently. In addition, although the police did not apparently make express application to the learned magistrate, he ordered that the appellant be placed under police supervision for 12 months. The appellant appeals against sentence but has confined his submissions to the supervision order. He has advanced the usual argument that it will prejudice him, upon his release from prison, in finding employment.

2. The appellant had two previous convictions for robbery, on one occasion it being robbery with aggravation, and he had had the advantage of a considerable period in the training centre. Nevertheless I have confirmed from counsel for the Crown that police supervision was not asked for by the prosecution and that the police are not pressing that the supervision order should stand. While I do not say that in the light of his record a police supervision order should not have been made upon application, in view of the present attitude of the police to this order I think it would be appropriate that the order should rescinded. There will, however, be no change in the sentences of imprisonment.

 

4th December 1968

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Evans for the Respondent