HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

CHAN YIU KIT 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
5438-EN-1975-03-06

CHAN YIU KIT v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000055/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN  
 CHAN YIU KITAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins & Pickering, JJ.

Date of Judgment 6th March 1975. 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J.:

1. This is an appeal against a sentence of four years' imprisonment for wounding with intent. The Appellant was charged jointly with another man, who was acquitted.

2.           We have only the Reasons for Verdict of the learned judge and not the evidence, but on a careful consideration of the judge's reasons it would appear that he accepted that this was not a one-sided attack. All the protagonists were neighbours and both sides went to the scene of the alleged offence armed: the victim came out of his house with a water-pipe, while the Appellant was armed with a chisel. (As to that it is fair to point out that he is a carpenter by trade). There had obviously been some local dispute between them and the judge appears to accept the Appellant's story that the two sides attacked each other simultaneously. The attack of the victim was not very violent, but the Appellant struck a violent blow at the victim's hand. Thereafter, and this was the gravamen of the offence, the victim having turned away, the Appellant stabbed him in the back. We think that, if the judge had accepted the story of the prosecution that the other Accused had held the victim while this Appellant stabbed the victim, the four years would have been amply justified. However, the offence was clearly committed in hot blood, following upon what had started a a fight. Even accepting that the two Accused were in part responsible for provoking the other man we think that four years' imprisonment is unduly high. The Appellant had previous convictions but nothing of a violent nature and in all the circumstances we think justice will be done if the sentence is reduced to one of two years' imprisonment.

 

6th March 1975.

 

Representation: