HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1969

WONG CHI KIN 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
381-EN-1969-03-07

WONG CHI KIN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000101/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 1969

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

BETWEEN
WONG CHI KINAppellant

AND

THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 7 March 1969

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

The appellant pleaded guilty before the magistrate to two offences of larceny from the person and for each was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment concurrent. On the first occasion he snatched a wrist-watch from the hand of a man in a public lavatory and on the second he snatched a purse from a girl aged 16 years. He has three previous convictions: one of them was for an offence of larceny, for which he was sent to the Training Centre, and another was for evading payment of entertainment tax.

2. The learned magistrate had regard to the prevalence of this type of offence. He was told that application was being made for the appellant to go to England but the appellant tells me that his parents are proposing to leave him in charge of a business in Hong Kong.

3. Having regard to the fact that the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently I cannot say that they are excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

 

7th March, 1969.

  

Representation:

Mr. Lucas for the Respondent

Judgment pronounced by Huggins J. in court