HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

CHEUNG NANG 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
3068-EN-1971-06-30

CHEUNG NANG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000323/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 323 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
CHEUNG NANGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 30th June, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment for theft and appeals against that sentence.

2. He stole a piece of cloth from a parked motor car. As happens too often the car was not locked, but that does not excuse the Appellant because this was not a sudden temptation to a man with an otherwise clear record. He has been before the court on twenty-four previous occasions and about half of those occasions were for offences of dishonesty. He rightly points out that on many of these occasions he was sentenced to short terms of imprisonment and he feels hurt that, for what he says is a comparatively trivial offence, he has now been sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment. It is obvious that he has not learned his lesson from the previous leniency shown to him. Nine months' imprisonment was a proper sentence for this offence and the appeal is dismissed.

 

30th June, 1971.

 

Representation: