HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

JOHN RICHARD DUFFY 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
3404-EN-1975-06-04

JOHN RICHARD DUFFY v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000353/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN  
 John Richard DUFFYAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 4th June, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against two summonses brought under the provisions of the Post Office Ordinance. The appellant appealed both against his conviction and sentences.

2. I dismissed the appeal against conviction. The first summons was for the offence of bringing letters into Hong Kong without lawful authority and the second summons was for being in possession of such letters. Both summonses lay under section 6 of the Post Office Ordinance. The magistrate imposed a fine of $250 on each of the two summonses. In my view that is wrong, the facts showed that the two offences formed one act.

3. I therefore allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of remitting the fine of $250 on the second summons, that is the summons for being in possession of letters brought into Hong Kong without authority. If the fine has been paid it must be returned to the appellant.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Hampton (G. Hampton & Winter) for appellant.

Stevenson for crown.