HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

LI MING 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
6662-EN-1968-12-13

LI MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000707/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 707 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
LI MINGAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 13 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to loitering at night, to possession of an instrument fit for an unlawful purpose and to larceny from a vehicle. He was sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment on each of the first two charges concurrent and 4 months', consecutive, on the third charge. He appeals against these sentences.

2. The appellant is an old man: he says he is 67 but the criminal record suggests that he was born in 1907. He has no doubt for a long time been a drug addict. In 1948 he started his criminal record in Hong Kong with a conviction for keeping an opium divan and on the majority of the thirty-four occasions upon which he has been before the court it has been in respect of offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He told me that he had not any previous conviction for dishonesty but that is not quite accurate: he had several such convictions 10 years ago but as recently as November of 1967 he was convicted on almost identical charges to the present ones. It is apparent, as I say, that he is a drug addict and that he is now finding it difficult to pay for his drugs. He tells me that his family has recently returned to China and that he was unable to do so because he could not afford to go. I do not believe that that had any material effect upon this case.

3. The sentences which were passed were, in my view, entirely proper and the appeal must be dismissed.

 

13th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Duckett for the Respondent