HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

CHUNG SAI-KIT 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
4623-EN-1972-06-24

CHUNG SAI-KIT v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000471/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN  
 CHUNG Sai-kitAppellant
 and 
 The QueenRespondent

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

Coram: Briggs, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 24th June, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against sentence.

2. The Appellant, a youth aged 18, was convicted on May 9th 1972, of two offences: one of theft and one of robbery. He, and another youth, stole a watch on one occasion, and a watch and $30 on a second occasion. The second occasion, the robbery, occurred in a staircase in a Resettlement Estate, and threats of violence were used. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for each offence, the sentences being ordered to be served concurrently.

3. At the dates of committing those offences the Appellant was on probation. In June 1970 he pleaded guilty to one offence of robbery with aggravation and asked that one other offence be taken into consideration. For this he was placed on Probation for two years.

4. The Magistrate who tried the present case discharged the Probation order, and sentenced the Appellant to 12 months imprisonment to be served consecutively to the term of six months, which he imposed for the present offences. This makes a total of 18 months.

5. The Appellant had nearly completed the period of his order for Probation without further offence. In my view the total of 18 months imprisonment is excessive for what were unsuccessful and somewhat trivial offences. For these reasons I reduced the sentence of 12 months to six months making a total of 12 months in all.

 

 

 (G.G. Briggs)
 Puisne Judge
 24th June, 1972.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person,

Niamatullah, C.C. for Crown.