HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1974

YUNG SAI WING 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
4152-EN-1974-07-25

YUNG SAI WING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000422/1974

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 422 OF 1974

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

 

BETWEEN  
 YUNG SAI WINGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Trainor, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 25th July 1974.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Briggs, C.J.:

1. This is another case referred to the Full Court by the single judge. The Appellant appeals against sentences of three months', six months' and nine months' imprisonment imposed upon him for attempted theft, going equipped for stealing and unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. The first two sentences were ordered to be concurrent but the third was to be consecutive to the others.

2. At 3.05 a.m. the Appellant was found dismantling a cassette tape-recorder in a motor-car. On his person were found the drugs and a large assortment of keys and tools. In passing a heavier sentence on the second charge than on the first the learned magistrate possibly concluded from the number of keys found that the Appellant intended to make a habit of stealing from cars. Counsel for the Crown, while submitting that the total of the punishment was not excessive, did not feel able to support the magistrate's sentences. With respect we think it was wrong to impose a heavier sentence for what we regard as the less serious offence. An actual attempt to steal must always be more serious than going equipped to commit a theft of the kind attempted. Had the learned magistrate sentenced the Appellant to six months' imprisonment on the first charge and three months' on the second, we would not have thought it right to interfere. As it is, we feel compelled to allow the appeal and to reduce the sentence on the second charge to one of three months' imprisonment. Otherwise the order will remain unchanged.

 

 

 Greoffrey Briggs

 

25th July 1974.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Macdougall, D.D.P.P., for Crown/Respondent.