HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

HUI KWOK 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
5130-EN-1975-07-14

HUI KWOK v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000520/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 520 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:  
 HUI KwokAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 14th July, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of loitering and was found guilty of the offence of going equipped for stealing. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on the first charge and nine months' imprisonment on the second charge, the sentences to be served concurrently. The appellant appealed both against his conviction and sentence.

2. It is enough for me to say that there was no merit in the appeal against conviction and that the appeal is dismissed.

3. The appellant is 56 years old and has no less than 29 previous convictions, most of which were cases of theft. He has been in and out of prison since his first sentence of twelve months' imprisonment which was imposed in 1946. However, his record does show that he has kept out of trouble from November 1972 until the commission of the present offence.

4. I am inclined to think that this shows that the appellant is making a real effort to live down his past. He has also stated to me in court that there is a job open to him. In the circumstances I allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent that the two sentences are to be suspended for eighteen months.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Caird for crown.