HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

LEUNG BING 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
4979-EN-1975-07-03

LEUNG BING YIU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000505/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 505 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN  
 LEUNG BING YIUAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Mr. Commissioner O'Connor

Date of Judgment: 3 July 1975

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant and another man were jointly charged, tried and convicted on a charge of robbery. They were unrepresented. Each defendant gave evidence but the record does not disclose that either defendant was given an opportunity to cross-examine the other. Nor does the record disclose that in respect of any witness in the case was an opportunity given to re-examine

2. From the detail in which some matters were recorded by the magistrate it would be a fair conclusion that if the opportunity had been given it would have been recorded. It is important that the record should show that opportunities were given to cross-examine and re-examine and this is of particular importance where the defendants are unrepresented.

3. Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. In view of the sentence imposed and the length of time spent in custody I do not order retrial.

 

 

 (R. O'Connor)
 Commissioner of Supreme Court.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

J.W. Dick for respondent.