HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

KWOK WING-YIN 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
4063-EN-1975-06-11

KWOK WING-YIN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000414/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 414 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:  
 KWOK Wing-yinAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 11th June, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of being in possession of an offensive weapon and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, and for resisting arrest for which he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, the sentences to be served concurrently.

2. The facts are simple. A party of uniformed police in a car noticed five or six young Chinese running together near a resettlement estate. The police shouted to them to stop but they ran away. The appellant was caught and in his possession was found armed and there was a third weapon found near the spot. The knife which was found in the possession of the appellant was a very ugly weapon.

3. The appellant does not have a clear record and he has served a term in a detention centre for robbery in 1973. However, I think a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment for being in possession of an offensive weapon of this nature is too heavy, in the circumstances of this case. The appellant's appeal against conviction is dismissed but the appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent that the sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment be reduced to nine months.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Macdougall for crown.