HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

LEUNG CHUN MING 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
5992-EN-1972-10-31

LEUNG CHUN MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000614/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 614 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
LEUNG CHUN MINGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 31st October, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against the conviction on a charge of robbery. Originally the Appellant appealed against conviction and sentence but he has abandoned his appeal against sentence. The grounds of appeal are, first, an improper rejection of evidence and, secondly, that there was no sufficient evidence whereon to found the conviction. The basis of the first complaint appears to be that, according to the Appellant, he asked the magistrate to send someone to see if his finger prints were on an iron bar which was said to have been used by him. If any such request was made, it was of course properly rejected because it is no function of the magistrate to send people to look for evidence.

2. The case for the Crown was that the alleged victim had come to a flat in Chatham Road from Kai Tak Airport: outside he saw a number of Chinese men including the Appellant: they demanded money from him and subsequently attacked him and stole £3 sterling from him: they then ran away but he caught hold of the Appellant: there was a struggle and then a constable arrived and arrested the Appellant. That was ample evidence, if believed, whereon to found a conviction. I have studied this record and I see no reason whatever to suspect that the magistrate may have come to a wrong decision.

3. The appeal is dismissed.

 

31st October, 1972.

 

Representation: