HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

YU MIN-HO @ WONG SHUI 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
5615-EN-1975-09-15

YU MIN-HO @ WONG SHUI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000569/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 1975

BETWEEN
YU Min-ho @ WONG ShuiAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 15th September, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of one count of burglary and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, and sentenced to three years on the first count and two years on each of the second and third counts. The two sentences of two years were ordered to be served concurrently but consecutive to the sentence on the first count. Therefore, the total sentence is five years. The facts are simple.

2. The appellant was caught red-handed at about 4 a.m. on the 6th May as he was burgling a flat. He attacked the two occupants of the flat and injured both of them.

3. There were no grounds for interfering with the convictions in this case and the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

4. The appellant has a long record of previous convictions including offences of previous burglaries and wounding. However, the appellant seems to have kept out of trouble since September 1968. We think that the trial judge did not pay enough attention to this point. For this reason and for no other reason, we think it proper to reduce the sentence on the first charge from three years to two years. This will result in the total sentence which the appellant has to serve as being four years and not five years.

(Geoffrey Briggs)
President.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Adams, c.c. for Crown.