HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1969

CHENG CHUN KUEN 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
5763-EN-1969-09-10

CHENG CHUN KUEN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000587/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.587 OF 1969

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

Between:
CHENG CHUN KUENAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Rigby, S.P.J.

Date of Judgment: 10 September 1969

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The appellant was convicted upon two charges preferred against him of being a suspected person found loitering and of possession of instruments fit for an unlawful purpose. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on each charge, such sentences to run consecutively.

2. The brief facts of the case were that he was seen behaving in a suspicious manner, and when stopped and searched by the two police officers who so suspected him he was found to have in his possession a rusty old saw and a rusty old pair of scissors.

3. The sentences of 3 months' imprisonment are the maximum sentences that can be imposed in respect of each offence. In my view, in cases of this kind where there are two charges of this nature, to wit, a suspected person found loitering and at the same time he is found in possession of instruments fit for an unlawful purpose, it is appropriate that where sentences of imprisonment are imposed those sentences should run concurrently rather than consecutively.

4. The appeal will, therefore, be allowed to the extent that the sentences, each of 3 months' imprisonment, are to run concurrently and not consecutively.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Boy. D.D.P.P. for Crown/Respondent.