HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

LING 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
6527-EN-1968-12-12

LING HUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000689/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 689 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN

LING HUNGAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 12 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to four charges of robbery with aggravation, the four offences being committed within a period of four days. The aggravation in each offence was that he used a weapon. All four offences were committed at night. The appellant had nothing to say in mitigation and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. He had a number of previous convictions, including several for dishonesty.

2. Before me the appellant has hinted that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the presence of police officers in the court and he alleges that he was afraid to plead not guilty. I do not believe him. The only other thing he has said is a factor in aggravation rather than in mitigation of sentence, namely that he had been out of prison for only ten days at the time when he committed the first offence.

3. I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with these sentences and the appeal is dismissed.

 

12th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Evans for the Respondent