HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

TSANG MAI-HING 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
430-EN-1975-12-13

TSANG MAI-HING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001027/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:
TSANG Mai-hingAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 13th December, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was charged with two offences, one, with being in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to the Public Order Ordinance and, two, with robbery. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the first offence and twelve months' imprisonment for the second offence, the sentences to be served concurrently. At the same time, the magistrate reactivated a sentence of three months' imprisonment which was passed on the appellant by another magistrate in April of this year, which was suspended for a period of two years. The magistrate in the present case ordered that sentence of three months to be reactivated and to be served consecutively to the sentence of twelve months passed on the appellant on the robbery charge. The appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence. I dismissed the appeal against conviction.

2. There were no grounds for interfering with the sentence of the appellant on the two charges which formed the subject matter of the present case. However, the reactivated suspended sentence of three months must be quashed. Possession of an offensive weapon, contrary to the Public Order Ordinance is an "excepted" offence and such a sentence cannot be suspended. Also, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of six months for that offence. The magistrate, therefore, who passed the sentence of three months for that offence in April and suspended it for two years was wholly wrong.

3. In the circumstances, there is no alternative but to quash the three months sentence reactivated by the magistrate in the present case and therefore the nett result is that the appellant will serve a total of twelve months' imprisonment and not fifteen months' imprisonment.

 

 

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Miss Kam, C.C., for Crown.