HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

TANG CHU @ CHEUNG KWOK LEUNG 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
376-EN-1975-11-21

TANG CHU @ CHEUNG KWOK LEUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001003/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRININAL APPEAL NO. 1003 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:
TANG CHU @ CHEUNG KWOK LEUNGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 21st November 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was convicted of possession of an offensive weapon and escape from lawful custody and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment consecutively upon each of those two charges. At the same time a suspended sentence of twelve months' imprisonment for membership of a triad society was activated so that his total sentence amounted to thirty months' imprisonment. He appeals against those sentences.

2. There is no merit in the appeal against the sentence for escape from lawful custody nor in that for activation of the suspended sentence for triad membership. However, the offensive weapon found in the appellant's pocket was described at the hearing as "part of scissors". The scissors were not available for my inspection as they should have been and I was reduced to asking the appellant what this description "part of scissors" meant. He told me that the weapon was a pair of scissors with a broken blade.

3. After pleading guilty to this charge in the court below the appellant agreed the facts related to the court including the fact that when questioned as to why he carried the scissors he said that he intended to steal something with their help. The phrase "to steal" in that connection is ambiguous. It might have meant that he intended to use the broken scissors in the course of robbery or that he intended to use them as an instrument for breaking in. Either explanation would be consistent with his record which includes a conviction for robbery with violence and another for theft from a motor-car. Giving him the benefit of the doubt as to the gravity of his actual purpose, and because the weapon was a relatively innocuous one in comparison with those frequently produced before the courts, I allowed the appeal against his sentence upon the charge of possession of an offensive weapon, set aside the sentence of nine months' imprisonment and substituted it with one of six months.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

C.W. Reid, C.C. for Respondent.