HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

WONG KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER 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
6721-EN-1972-11-27

WONG KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000715/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 715 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
(1) WONG KWOK LEUNGAppellants
(2) CHEUNG WAI MING
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins J.

Date of Judgment: 27th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellants are appealing against their sentences of detention in a Training Centre for an offence of blackmail. They are aged 17 and 16. They approached a young man in a garden at the junction of Prince Edward Road and Sai Yee Street and, clearly giving the impression that they were triad members, they demanded money.

2. The learned magistrate obtained Probation Officer's reports, neither of which was favourable, and after considering the whole matter he decided that detention in a Training Centre was the appropriate sentence. Nothing that the Appellants have said to me today leads me to disagree with him.

3. The appeals are dismissed.

 

27th November, 1972.

 

Representation: