HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1969

LI WAH 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
1820-EN-1969-04-28

LI WAH v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000210/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 1969

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

BETWEEN
LI WAHAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 28 April 1969

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

Huggins,J:

1. In this case the appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment concurrent on three charges of robbery with aggravation. In each instance he was alleged to have committed the offence in company with another person and in two of them the culprits used weapons. The appellant has a long record of larcenies and associated crimes and was in fact sentenced to five years' imprisonment for robbery with aggravation and wounding in July of 1965.

2. Before me the appellant has asked for a chance but he has also complained of a police supervision order which he says stands against him. The criminal record form which was before me did not show clearly how this order came to be made although there was some reference to a recommendation for police supervision. When I asked the appellant how his order came to be made he could not tell me but he said that he was not subject to deportation. It now appears, however, that on the 3rd January this year an order was made by the Governor-in-Council under s.31 of the Police Supervision Ordinance on the grounds that the appellant was liable to deportation. The making of that order was an Executive act against which no appeal lies to this court.

3. The sentence of two years' imprisonment on these charges was well merited. Indeed I think the appellant may well be lucky that it was not more. The appeal is dismissed.

 

28th April, 1969.

  

Representation:

Applicant in person.

Mr. Evans for Respondent.

Judgment pronounced by Huggins J. in Court.