HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1973

TSUI PING SUM 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
82328-EN-1973-04-03

TSUI PING SUM v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 187 OF 1973

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

BETWEEN
TSUI Ping-sumAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1.  The Appellant appeals against a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. At 1:35 a.m. he was stopped and searched by the police. They found a knife with one end tucked into his shoe and the other fastened to his ankle with a piece of string. The weapon was seven inches in length.

2.  When he first appeared before the magistrate the Appellant said he had borrowed the knife to peel fruit and did not want it to be found on him so he hid it in his shoe. At a subsequent hearing he admitted that that was not true.

3.  This Appellant has one previous conviction for robbery with aggravation apart from numerous previous convictions for larceny from the person. The learned magistrate thought that the minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment was inappropriate and on mature reconsideration in his view even the present sentence is quite inadequate.

4.  I am not saying that a slightly heavier sentence might not have been justified but I am certainly not going to interfere either way. I do say that there are far too many people using knives for fighting and for committing offences of theft and the sooner people realise that they will receive severe sentences if they are caught carrying offensive weapon in public places the better.

3rd April, 1973