HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1974

WONG KA-TUNG 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
7090-EN-1974-12-05

WONG KA-TUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000794/1974

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 794 OF 1974

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

 

BETWEEN  
 WONG Ka-tungAppellant
 and 
 The QueenRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, McMullin and Pickering, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 5th December, 1974.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J.:

1. The Appellant appeals against two sentences of 4 ½ years' imprisonment concurrent on charges of robbery. One of the offences was a particularly mean one - when a man was robbed when he was in a public lavatory. In each case there were two robbers, no weapons were produced and, although the advocate for the Appellant in the court below said there was "some violence but nobody injured", it would appear that such violence as there was was minimal and consisted of searching the victims.

2. The Appellant has a record of previous convictions, including two for robbery with aggravation, but for those offences he received 9 months' imprisonment concurrent and he has had no long period of imprisonment for any of the offences of which he has been convicted.

3. Each member of the Court is of the view that had he been sitting at first instance he would have passed a total sentence of 3 to 3 ½ years. Taking everything into consideration we, after some hesitation, are of opinion that these sentences are manifestly excessive and they will be reduced to 3 years' imprisonment on each charge concurrent.

 

5th December, 1974.

 

Representation: