HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1974

LUI LAM 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
7534-EN-1974-04-08

LUI LAM v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000094/1974

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 1974

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

 

BETWEEN:
LUI LamAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J. , Huggins and McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 8 April 1974

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant for the offence of manslaughter.

2. The facts briefly are that the appellant, who is the owner and sole proprietor of a shop called the Lui Lam Iron Works in the Tsz Wan Shan Estate, Kowloon, early in the morning of the 11 June, 1973 noticed one CHEUNG Moon, who appeared to be attempting to steal some pieces of iron which were stacked opposite to the front entrance of the shop and which were owned by the appellant. The appellant went out to remonstrate with CHEUNG Moon. As a result of the confrontation, CHEUNG Moon was killed by the appellant. The weapon used was a piece of iron and two wounds were inflicted on the victim's head. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against sentence out of time. This was granted by the court.

3. The appellant is aged 24 and unmarried. He has a clear record. At the time of the offence he was running a small but successful business and was employing several persons. It is quite obvious from the facts of the case that there was no premeditation, We think that in the circumstances the sentence of three years' imprisonment passed by the Commissioner in this case was manifestly excessive and we think justice would best be done if there was substituted therefor a sentence of nine months.

 

 

Briggs, C.J. , Huggins and McMullin, JJ

 

Representation: