HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

CHAN YAT 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
2877-EN-1971-06-08

CHAN YAT MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000306/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 306 of 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
CHAN YAT MINGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 8th June, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to theft and was sentenced to 6 months" imprisonment.

2. Early in the morning he was found removing some tools from the back of a car while the owner was washing his face at a stand-pipe nearby. Before me the Appellant, although he admitted the facts in the lower court, has alleged that the tools were not in the car at all but on the ground and that he was merely looking at them.

3. The Appellant has been before the court on six previous occasions. On two of them he was bound over to be of good behaviour and on another he was conditionally discharged. All the offences were for this type of dishonesty. It is obvious that leniency has not had any effect on the Appellant and the sentence of 6 months' imprisonment was fully justified.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

8th June, 1971.

 

Representation: