HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

LAM SAN 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
82045-EN-1973-02-12

LAM SAN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 894 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
LAM SANAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date: 12th February, 1973

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1.  The appellant in this case was convicted of being a suspected person found loitering and also of going equipped for stealing. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment on the first charge and to six months consecutive on the second charge.

2.  The facts were that he was observed laying hands on the doors of three cars and, when arrested, he had with him a screwdriver which he admitted he intended to use in opening car doors. I saw nothing inappropriate in the individual sentences or in the fact that he received a higher sentence on the second charge than the maximum permissible upon the first for, as it seems to me, the second charge was, in the circumstances of this case, the substantive charge. The two charges having originated out of the same incident, however, it was incorrect to order the sentences should be consecutive, and the appeal against sentence succeeds to the extent that the two terms of three months and six months imprisonment respectively, will run concurrently and not consecutively.

Appellant in person.

Duckett, S.C.C. for Respondent.