HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1973

WONG SHU 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
7285-EN-1973-12-03

WONG SHU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000851/1973

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 851 OF 1973

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

 

BETWEEN  
 WONG SHUAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 3rd December 1973.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant appeals against a sentence of nine months' imprisonment imposed for theft. He pleaded Guilty to the offence and admitted the facts as set out in the Statement of Facts. That statement revealed that the Appellant was seen by two police officers to remove two woollen jackets from a hawker's stall: he walked away with them and was arrested. Although that Statement of Facts was admitted by the Appellant he now asserts that he never took the jackets from a stall but found them in the street, and he says that he pleaded Guilty and admitted the Statement of Facts because he was suffering from a fever. I do not believe a word of it.

2. The Appellant is a man of 55. Although he is recorded in the magistrate's notes as having 22 previous convictions with 5 similar, my count makes it 31 convictions and 8 similar, although he was before the courts on 22 previous occasions.

3. I see nothing whatever wrong with this sentence and the appeal is dismissed. The Appellant may consider himself lucky that I have not increased the sentence by reason of the waste of this Court's time.

 

3rd December 1973.

 

Representation: