HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

LI YEE 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
3308-EN-1972-06-05

LI YEE v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000345/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 345 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN  
 LI YeeAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 346 OF 1972

 

BETWEEN  
 LI Hon-yamAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Briggs, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 5.6.1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. These two appeals against sentence came before me on June 5th 1972.

2. The record in each case shows that the Appellant pleaded guilty to one offence and asked that other offences should be taken into consideration. The facts of the offences to be taken into consideration were then read to the Appellant who is recorded as admitting them. The magistrate then proceeded to sentence the Appellant not only for the offence to which he had pleaded guilty but also to the offences which were to be taken into consideration. This is wrong, for the Appellant had not pleaded to the offences to be taken into consideration. The sentences supposedly imposed were stated to be concurrent with the sentence imposed for the offence to which the Appellant pleaded guilty.

3. In the circumstances I recorded that the sentences supposedly imposed for the offences which were to be taken into consideration were to be quashed. But that the sentence imposed for the offence to which the Appellant pleaded guilty should stand with the addition that it should state that the other offences had been taken into consideration.

 

 

 (G.G. Briggs)
 Puisne Judge
 5.6.72.

 

Representation: