HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1974

LI KWOK YUI 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
6734-EN-1974-09-27

LI KWOK YUI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000718/1974

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 718 OF 1974

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

 

BETWEEN  
 LI KWOK YUIAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 27th September 1974.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This Appellant appeals against sentences of nine months' imprisonment consecutive on two charges of burglary. In the first case he appears to have climbed up the wall of a building and through an open window. In the second case he broke the lock on the door. On each occasion he stole a considerable quantity of property after ransacking the flat.

2. This is by no means the first time this Appellant has been convicted of burglary. In 1971 he was twice convicted of that offence. In 1970 he was convicted of house-breaking. He has four other convictions for larceny, one for being found on premises for an unlawful purpose and one for unlawful possession. He does not appear to know when he is fortunate. He was sentenced to no more than nine months' imprisonment on any of the previous occasions and the leniency shown to him in the past appears to have hardened him rather than to lead him to mend his ways.

3. Far from thinking that the sentences in this case were too heavy I think they were unduly lenient, so much so that I find myself driven to allowing this appeal and to increasing the sentences imposed. Although nine months' may have been lenient for the first offence I do not propose to interfere on that charge, but on the second charge the sentence will be increased from nine months' to eighteen months' imprisonment. As ordered by the magistrate those sentences will be consecutive.

 

27th September 1974.

 

Representation: