HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1970

CHAN MING 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
3292-EN-1970-07-20

CHAN MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000343/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 343 OF 1970

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

BETWEEN
CHAN Ming alias CHAN Shai-biuAppellant
AND
The QueenRespondent

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

Coram: Mills-Owens J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 20 July 1970

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. In this appeal it was pointed out to me on behalf of the Crown in regard to the second charge, one of possession of an offensive weapon contrary to sec.17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, that the sentence imposed of 6 months imprisonment exceeded the maximum, namely 3 months. Accordingly I substituted a sentence of 3 months imprisonment on that charge. It was a sentence ordered to run concurrently with a sentence of 2 years imprisonment on the first charge. On the third charge a sentence of 1 year's imprisonment consecutive to the 2 year sentence had been imposed. The appeal against conviction on all three charges having been dismissed, no practical difference results in the overall length of imprisonment to be served.

 

 

(Mills-Owens J.)

 

20th July, 1970.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Lucas (Senior Crown Counsel) for Respondent.

Oral judgment reduced into writing.