HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1974

LI KA YEUNG AND ANOTHER 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
6166-EN-1974-10-04

LI KA YEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000634/1974

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.634 OF 1974

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

 

BETWEEN  
 LI KA YEUNG 
 WONG SAI KWONGAppellants
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, McMullin & Pickering, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 4th October 1974.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J.:

1. These two Appellants and another man were jointly charged on one charge and there were three additional charges against the first Appellant. The first charge was one of robbery and the others related to the taking and driving of a conveyance. The two Appellants were sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the robbery. They had originally pleaded Not guilty but pleaded Guilty in the course of the trial.

2. The robbery took place in the early hours of the morning. As somebody entered the building in which his home was, he was attacked from behind. One man grabbed his neck and both of them pointed knives at the victim. The two men had come from a car and they drove away in the car.

3. Both Appellants concede that the sentence of three years' imprisonment was not an unfair sentence for a crime of this kind. We agree, particularly in respect of the second Appellant having regard to his previous conviction for robbery with aggravation. The pleas that have been made to us this morning do not persuade us that we ought to interfere with those sentences. Nor do we think that the sentences of three months' imprisonment imposed on the first Appellant for the driving offences were improper but we are concerned at the disqualification for two years for driving private cars. That disqualification would take effect from the date of the order and the first Appellant will be in prison for two years from the date of that order in ordinary circumstances, so that the disqualification will have no real effect at all. We therefore allow the appeal of the first Appellant to the extent that the sentence of disqualification will be increased from one of two years to one of four years, thus giving effect to what was obviously the intention of the learned judge. Apart from that the appeals are dismissed.

 

4th October 1974.

 

Representation: