HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

LI CHUNG 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
7521-EN-1972-01-17

LI CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000933/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
Li ChungAppellant
and
The QueenRespondent

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

Coram: Leonard J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 17 January 1972

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against sentence. In the court below the appellant had pleaded guilty to loitering and to a charge of going equipped for stealing. For the first offence he was sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment and for the second to 6 months' imprisonment consecutive. The learned magistrate had made the sentences consecutive because the article with which he was equipped for stealing was a razor blade. Notwithstanding this fact, and that the appellant, appears from his record to be a professional pickpocket both offences having been committed at the same time and place and being essentially the same offence I consider that the sentences should run concurrently I therefore allow this appeal to the extent that the sentences imposed shall run concurrently.

 

 

(P.F.X. Leonard)
Puisne Judge

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

E. So, C.C. for respondent.

Oral judgment reduced into writing.