HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

TO SZE 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
82333-EN-1973-02-13

TO SZE MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 836 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
TO SZE MINGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, McMullin and Pickering, JJ.

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J.:

1.  This is an appeal against sentences of two years’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary, one year’s imprisonment for possession of arms without a licence, one year’s imprisonment for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and one year’s imprisonment for unlawful control of ammunition without a licence. The first three sentences were concurrent but the fourth was consecutive to that on the other charges.

2.  The Appellant, who has served for some five years as an auxiliary policeman, became aware that the employees of a bank in the China Fleet Club Building were in the habit of carrying large sums of money to the bank at a particular time of day. He planned to rob the bank and, for that purpose, carried out a reconnaissance. Thereafter, on 31st October, he went at 8:40 in the morning to the premises of the bank, apparently intending to hide himself there until the employee arrived with the money. However, there was a cleaner in the premises and the Appellant went up behind him and struck him on the left shoulder with an iron bar wrapped in newspaper. The man tried to escape and the Appellant thereupon hit him on the head with the iron bar. Fortunately the man managed to get away and raised the alarm. The Appellant was intercepted and struggled with the supervisor of the China Fleet Club, who was at the scene, but was overpowered. He then said that he had only come to repair a water-tap. When the police arrived and he was searched, there were found on him what is described as a toy pistol, a knife with a blade of about seven inches, a hollow metal pipe fourteen inches in length and one inch in diameter, a single, lady’s glove and thirteen pieces of thin rope. He was arrested, and when his home was searched another toy pistol was found with various boxes of metal caps or blank cartridges, a bag of ball bearings and five cartridges varying in calibre from O.22 in. to a cartridge used in a power tool.

3.  The Appellant has pleaded his previous good conduct and his service with the auxiliary police force, the fact that he has a father and two young daughters to support and that his wife has deserted him. These were, doubtless, all matters taken into consideration by the learned judge. Amateurish though this robbery may have been in its execution it was nevertheless a very deliberate robbery, and we see no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed.

The appeal is dismissed.

13th February, 1973