HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

LI CHI HUNG 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
6514-EN-1968-12-12

LI CHI HUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000687/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 687 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
LI CHI HUNGAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 12 December 1968

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to simply larceny and larceny of a fixture. He appeals against sentences of six months' and nine months' imprisonment concurrent imposed upon him for those offences. He stole a kettle from outside some premises in Shek Kip Mei Resettlement Estate and he removed part of a children's slide from the Shek Kip Mei playground a mean type of offence in places where play facilities for children are in short supply. He has been before the court previously on no less than twenty three previous occasions. Some of the previous offences have been offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance but there were seven previous convictions for dishonesty: he was imprisoned less than three months ago for simply larceny. He asked me to release him earlier so that he may go to Taiwan with his younger brother. I would be happy to think that we could get rid of him to Taiwan but I have more than grave doubts whether the Taiwan authorities would receive him.

2. In my view the sentences imposed were in all the circumstances not unreasonable and the appeal is dismissed.

 

12th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Evans for the Respondent