HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

MOK MAN CHING 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
3394-EN-1971-07-15

MOK MAN CHING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000352/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
MOK MAN CHINGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant and another man were found smoking dangerous drugs together. When first brought before the Magistrate they pleaded Not guilty. Subsequently, when they came before the court a second time, they both apparently pleaded Guilty. So the record indicates, but I would emphasise again that where a person pleads Guilty s.19 of the Magistrates Ordinance requires that the admission be recorded not merely by a statement that he pleaded Guilty but in as nearly as possible in the words used by the defendant. This is particularly important where there is a change of plea.

2. The Appellant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and his co-defendant to 6 months' imprisonment. This distinction has apparently left the Appellant with a sense of grievance. The question is whether it is a justifiable sense of grievance.

3. The Appellant has been before the court on 29 previous occasions, on several of those occasions for more than three offences. On twelve occasions he was charged with offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He is 45 years' of age and younger than the other man, who did not have, so the Magistrate says, as bad a record.

4. I am not concerned with the sentence imposed on the co-defendant: what I am concerned with is whether the sentence on the Appellant can be justified and the more fact that the other man was treated with undue leniency, if such be the case, is not material. This Appellant has been in prison for short periods on many occasions and those sentences appear to have had little effect. The sentence was a severe one but it was intended to be severe. I am unable to say that it was wrong in principle. The appeal is dismissed.

 

15th July, 1971.

 

Representation: