HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

MA POR 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
6702-EN-1972-11-27

MA POR v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000712/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 712 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
MA PORAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 27th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant appeals against a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment for theft. He was picking pockets in the Temple Street Market. He has two previous convictions for theft and was, indeed, only recently released from prison. He also has previous convictions including some for dangerous drugs offences. The learned magistrate thought that it was necessary, owing to the prevalence of this type of offence, to protect the public. All the Appellant has been able to say before me is that he realises he has done wrong and hopes to be given a chance.

2. I see no reason to interfere with the sentence passed. I would only repeat what I said in relation to another appeal a few minutes ago: the learned magistrate here, also, has not recorded the precise words of the Appellant on his changing a plea from one of "Not guilty" to one of "Guilty".

3. The appeal is dismissed.

 

27th November, 1972.

 

Representation: