HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

NG CHAK LUNG 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
7428-EN

NG CHAK LUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000090/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN
NG CHAK LUNGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Briggs, J.

Date of Judgment:

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant in this appeal was convicted of theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence.

2. The appellant is a man of 22 years and has previously been convicted of robbery with aggravation for which he was put on probation for 18 months. He was 17 at the time. He has also served a period in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre for an offence involving dangerous drugs. And indeed he has a further three convictions for other offences.

3. The facts of the present case show that the appellant was really pleading guilty to attempted theft. He snatched a bag from a woman in the street. This was witnessed by two policemen who promptly arrested him. The bag dropped to the floor. The appellant never had possession of the bag. He only tried to steal it: he did not in fact steal it.

4. The appellant was unrepresented and so I treated the appeal as if it were on the grounds that the sentence was too severe inasmuch as the facts only disclosed an attempted theft and not an actual theft.

5. With some hesitation I substituted a sentence of 6 months for the sentence of 12 months imposed by the magistrate. That sentence is to date from the date of the sentence passed by the magistrate, 17th January 1972.

6. The appellant was at the time of the commission of this offence under a suspended sentence of four months. The magistrate ordered that that sentence should take effect consecutive to the sentence passed for the present offence. It will now take effect consecutive to the sentence substituted by me today. The time spent in custody awaiting the hearing of this appeal is to count towards sentence.

  

  

(G.G. Briggs)
Puisne Judge.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person