HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

CHAN HON CHIU AND ANOTHER 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
4043-EN-1975-07-30

CHAN HON CHIU AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000412/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 412 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN
CHAN HON CHIUAppellants
YU KWONG MING
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 30th July 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J.:

1. We have dismissed the application for leave to appeal against conviction but there remains the appeal against sentence.

2. This was a serious robbery by several armed men in which people in a restaurant were put in terror. However, the Appellant is only 17 years of age. In spite of that he has two previous convictions for robbery and there is a suspended sentence now in existence of six months for the defilement of a girl between the age of 13 and 16. The learned judge appears not to have had regard to that last suspended sentence. He imposed the same sentence on this Appellant as on the other Defendant, who was considerably older and who had a more serious criminal record.

3. We think that the learned judge did not sufficiently allow for the fact that this Appellant was younger than his co-defendant. In all the circumstances we think that the proper course is to substitute a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment for this offence and to activate the suspended sentence to run consecutively.

4. We so order.

 

30th July 1975.

 

Representation: