HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

LEUNG SAI HEI 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
4450-EN-1971-08-05

LEUNG SAI HEI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000454/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 454 OF 1971

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

  

BETWEEN
LEUNG SAI HEIAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 5 August 1971

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. This appeal is against concurrent sentences of 9 months' imprisonment for the two offences of Going Equipped for Stealing and Theft (of a letter from a post box). The appellant has 20 previous conviction involving dishonesty.

2. In Wong Shu and The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1971) I reduced the sentence of 9 months imprisonment imposed for the offence of Going Equipped for Stealing to one of 6 months "in an effort to secure uniformity of sentencing." It is for the same reason that I allow the appeal upon the first charge in the present case and substitute a sentence of 6 months imprisonment in lieu of that of 9 months imposed by the same learned magistrate.

3. The appeal against the charge of theft is dismissed so that there is no practical effect upon the length of time which the appellant must spend in prison.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Namatullah, C.C. for Crown.