HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1969

SIU KAI SHING 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
7361-EN-1969-03-07

SIU KAI SHING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000088/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 88 OF 1969

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

BETWEEN
SIU KAI SHINGAppellant

AND

THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 7 March 1969

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

Huggins,J:

1. The appellant was convicted before the learned magistrate of four charges of robbery with aggravation. He appears to have gone round with several other men and robbed victims of property such as wrist watches. He is a first offender in the sense that he was a first offender when he committed the first of these robberies and it is apparently not disputed that he was co-operative once he had been arrested. He is 21 years of age and has a wife and a child.

2. The learned magistrate clearly thought that any sentence other than one of imprisonment was inappropriate in the present case. He referred to the prevalence of robberies in the Colony at the present time and clearly indicated that had there been any women among the victims and had the appellant not had a clear record he would have imposed a substantially heavier sentence, and I think he would have been fully justified in doing so in those circumstances. However, having regard to the age of the appellant and the matters I have referred to, he passed sentences of 12 months' imprisonment concurrent on each of the four charges. I cannot think that that was wrong.

3. The appeal is dismissed.

 

7th March, 1969.

 

Representation:

Mr. Lucas for the Respondent

Judgment pronounced by Huggin ...(illegible) co ...(illegible)