HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1969

CHAU KWAN AND ANOTHER 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
4978-EN-1969-09-01

CHAU KWAN AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000505/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 505 OF 1969

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

BETWEEN
1. CHAU KWANAppellants
2. TANG CHU SHUI
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Full Court (Briggs & McMullin, JJ.) in Court.

Date of Judgment: 1 September 1969

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. In sentencing the two accused persons in this case to terms of imprisonment of 4 years on a charge of robbery with aggravation the learned District Judge said in the course of his Reasons for Sentence:

"The amount of booty they obtained is not of overriding consideration in an offence such as this. They were after all they could get and that they only got a pen and pencil is despite their efforts. I reduce slightly on account of pleas."

2. Both defendants had pleaded guilty to the charge. The booty in question was a Parker 61 fountain pen and matching pencil. The victim was assaulted and knocked to the ground on two occasions in the course of the struggle by the two defendants. No weapon was used in the course of the robbery.

3. Notwithstanding the prevalence of this type of crime and the serious nature of it we are of the opinion that, having regard to the scale of sentences commonly imposed in the District Courts in respect of persons with similar records to the present appellants for offences involving small quantities of property the present sentences were excessive. We treat the present applications as the substantive appeal for the sentences of four years we substitute sentences of 3 years in respect of each appellant.

 

 

(G.G. Briggs)
President

 

 

(A.M. McMullin)
Appeal Judge
1st September, 1969.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Penlington c.c. for Crown.

Oral judgment reduced into writing.