HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

CHU KAM-YIU 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
551-EN-1976-01-03

CHU KAM-YIU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001089/1975

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1089 OF 1975

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

  

BETWEEN  
 CHU Kam-yiuAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 3rd January, 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The appellant was found guilty of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sentenced to a fine of $150. He appeals against his conviction and sentence.

2. The appellant was, at the time of the offence, a Senior Inspector in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. There was a dispute over certain business matters and as a result he struck the victim on the forehead with an ash tray in a restaurant. The assault in fact was a very minor one.

3. The magistrate who tried the case, saw and heard the witnesses who had given different versions of their evidence on different occasions.

4. The evidence was very carefully scrutinized and analysed and there is no ground for interfering with the conviction of the appellant.

5. The evidence shows that there were faults on both sides and as I have already said, the actual assault was very minor.

6. The appellant was also tried for two offences of criminal intimidation but the magistrate acquitted him on those two charges.

7. In the event, I think justice would best be done if the appeal against sentence is allowed and that the fine of $150 is set aside. No. conviction is to be recorded against the appellant and he is discharged absolutely.

  

  

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

  

Representation:

Sedgwick (J. Ip & Co.) for appellant.

Sharwood for crown.