HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1974

LEUNG CHING-WAH 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
4856-EN-1974-09-05

LEUNG CHING-WAH v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000496/1974

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 496 OF 1974

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

 

BETWEEN  
 LEUNG Ching-wahAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J. and Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 5th September, 1974.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of wounding with intent and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. He appeals against sentence.

2. In his reasons for sentence the trial judge noted that the appellant had been put on probation for two years in 1970 upon being convicted of blackmail. This should never have been disclosed to the District Judge since no conviction was recorded in that case. The appellant had two previous convictions, one of larceny from a person when he was very young and, secondly, an offence of being in possession of an offensive weapon for which he served two months' imprisonment. It is not possible, therefore, to make an order that the appellant be detained in a detention centre.

3. The trial judge dealt with the accused upon the basis that his participation in the offence was minimal. He goes on to say that he considered that the appellant was present, armed with a bottle and ready and willing to assist the members of his gang if that had been necessary. The offence was the familiar one of a gang of young persons armed with weapons, inflicting what turned out to be very serious injuries on a single person.

4. Taking all this into consideration and in view of the excellent chances which the probation officer thinks will attend upon a probation order being made we allow the appeal and set aside the sentence of twelve months' imprisonment. The appellant will be put on probation for a period of eighteen months.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

P. stoppals C.C., for Crown/Respondent.