HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

WONG MING YU 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
6507-EN-1968-12-04

WONG MING YU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000686/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.686 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
WONG MING YUAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 4 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of suspected stolen property which the learned magistrate described as "four nearly new rice bags". The appellant was seen approaching a marine store with this property. When stopped by the police he admitted that he had picked it up at the road side. He led the police to a spot outside house Nos. 82-84 Kai Tak Road, but the owner of the property could not be located. Before me the appellant has said that he picked up the bags from a rubbish dump, although that is not consistent with what he told the police and which he admitted before the magistrate to be true.

2. The appellant has a very long record, including a number of offences of dishonesty, but has not been convicted since December 1966 or convicted of an offence of dishonesty since April 1965. The learned magistrate imposed a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment.

3. There is no evidence as to the value of these bags. The appellant has been punished for every offence of which he has been convicted except the first one over 20 years ago and, having regard to the nature of the property in this case, I think it would be proper for me to allow this appeal and to substitute for the sentence of imprisonment an order of conditional discharge with a conviction recorded. The appellant has agreed to enter into a recognizance to be a good behaviour and to come up for judgment if called upon during the next two years and the bond will be in the nominal sum of $50.

 

4th December 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Evans for the Respondent