HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

MUI SIU 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
4678-EN-1971-08-05

MUI SIU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000477/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
MUI SIUAppellant
and
THE QUEEN

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 5th August, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to the theft of $483 from his employers and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, against which sentence he now appeals.

2. The appellant is 51 years of age and looks considerably older. He has no record of previous convictions involving dishonesty. On the present occasion he stole the money at around 10 o'clock in the morning and, having promptly lost it in gambling, he went back to the premises of his employers and immediately confessed. This confession was the basis of his plea in mitigation before the court below.

3. The learned magistrate in his Statement of Findings says:

"While appellant owned up immediately, to give undue weight to that would be tantamount to giving encouragement to all other employees to steal, on the understanding that they would only have to obtain lenient treatment."

I entirely agree with that sentiment but feel bound to observe that in the case of a man of the appellant's age and appearance a sentence of 6 months imprisonment for a first offence of dishonesty, which was by no means on the grand scale, is somewhat severe. All the appellant's previous convictions relate to the possession or smoking of dangerous drugs with the exception of one conviction for mendicancy and two for street gambling.

4. In all the circumstances I allow the appeal and reduce the sentence of 6 months imprisonment to one of 3 months.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Niamatullah C.C. for Crown.