HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1973

FUNG KEUNG KWOK 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

Files (2)

82070-EN-1973-02-23

FUNG KEUNG KWOK v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 1973

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

BETWEEN
FUNG KEUNG KWOKAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 1973

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

BETWEEN
FRANCISCO JOSE DECAAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date: 23th February, 1973

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

CORRECTION

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

 

1.  In these two appeals I reduced sentences imposed for the offence of going equipped for stealing, to six months imprisonment in each case upon the ground that the learned magistrate had exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him by s.91 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap.227) by imposing a sentence greater than six months.

2.  I was wrong in confusing the powers of a special magistrate under s.91 with those of a permanent magistrate under s.92.

3.  In each case I checked my action, in Court, with an experienced (and different) Crown counsel both of whom agreed that jurisdiction had been exceeded. It is fair to counsel to say that, in each case, my query was addressed to him without any prior notice or warning. The aberration is mine alone and I take full responsibility for it.

4.  I am grateful that no harm was done to either appellant. In the one case he received an undeserved reduction of three months in his sentence. In the other, there was no practical effect upon his total (concurrent) sentences.

5.  For the rest, I beat my breast and apologise to the Magisterial Bench for any confusion which my lapse may have caused amongst them, and to counsel for having misled them.

Both Appellant in person.

S.C.C. for Respondent in Cr. App. No. 22/73

A.P.C.C., for Respondent in Cr. App. No. 65/73

82044-EN-1973-02-12

FUNG KEUNG KWOK v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 1973

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

BETWEEN
FUNG KEUNG KWOKAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date: 12th February, 1973

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1.  The appellant was convicted of loitering at night contrary to s.26A of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap.228) and of going equipped for stealing contrary to the Theft Ordinance (No.21 of 1970 s.27). He was sentenced to three months imprisonment on the first charge and to nine months on the second charge, both sentences to run concurrently. The learned magistrate’s powers of sentence on the second charge being limited, by virtue of 2.91 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap.227) to a sentence of imprisonment of six months, it follows that the appeal must succeed in relation to the second charge and the sentence of nine months imprisonment upon that charge will be reduced to one of six months. Having regard to the appellant’s record, which includes three offences similar to that in the first charge and three similar to that in the second, there is no justification for any further reduction in his sentences.

Appellant in person.

Duckett, S.C.C. for Respondent.