HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

MAN CHUEN 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
6696-EN-1968-12-17

MAN CHUEN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000711/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 711 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
Man ChuenAppellant
AND
The QueenRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 17 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to larceny from the person and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence. The case for the Crown was that the police kept the appellant under observation for some minutes: he was acting in a suspicious manner and clearly was looking for a victim from whom he could steal. Eventually he did steal a wallet from somebody's back trouser-pocket. He was arrested on the spot.

2. The appellant has a bad record. The first three convictions were for assault, for disorderely conduct and for robbery. Since 1957 he has twelve previous convictions, all except four of which were for drug offences: three were for offences of dishonesty. It is true that the appellant has never been given a chance in the sense that he has been conditionally discharged or put on probation, but having examined the record with care I am of opinion that the learned magistrate was fully justified in considering these forms of sentence to be inappropriate on the present occasion. I agree with him that a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.

 

17th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Duckett for the Respondent