HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

HON PAK-YUE 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
5180-EN-1975-07-15

HON PAK-YUE v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000525/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 525 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:  
 HON Pak-yueAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences: theft and burglary. He was sentenced to twelve months for the first charge and eighteen months for the second charge, the sentences to run consecutively; in all, therefore, he would have to serve two and a half years' imprisonment.

2. The facts of the first charge are that the appellant was seen to drain some petrol from a goods vehicle into a bottle in order to use it in his own vehicle which had stopped. It was estimated that he had stolen about a quarter of a gallon. He pleaded guilty. This offence took place on the 12th May, 1975.

3. The facts of the second offence were that the appellant, perhaps with other persons, entered certain premises and stole $370. That offence took place in July 1972. The reason that the police were able to connect the appellant with that offence was that in July 1972 the fingerprints of the appellant were found on the premises which had been burgled. The appellant pleaded guilty to this offence also.

4. The appellant is aged 28 and has a bad record. His record shows that in July 1972 he was sentenced for an attempted burglary and given eighteen months, which he had served.

5. As to the sentences, in my view the sentence of twelve months for the first offence was too high and I think that a sentence of six months should be substituted therefor. As to the second offence, I think that if that had been known to the court which sentenced the appellant in July 1972 for the attempted burglary and for which he was given eighteen months, the sentence for the two charges would not have been greater. In the circumstances, I think the sentence on the second charge should be reduced to twelve months; the two sentences are to be served consecutively, namely, the appellant will serve eighteen months and not two and a half years.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Reid for crown.