HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

PANG TAT 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
5969-EN-1975-09-12

PANG TAT v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000611/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 611 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN
PANG TATAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment:12th September 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment for burglary. In the early hours of the morning the Appellant climbed over the rear wall of a yard at the back of a garage. He there stole two Hawaiian shirts which were hanging on a wall. He was seen running away by one of the garage mechanics, who was aroused from sleep by the presence of the Appellant. The mechanic gave chase and overpowered the Appellant.

2. The Appellant has a number of previous convictions for dishonesty but the last was one for burglary in July 1966, for which he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. Since then he has one conviction for unlawful possession of opium and one for loitering and being unable to give a satisfactory account. This latter conviction has all the appearance of an offence committed with intent to commit an act of dishonesty, but the Appellant assures me that in fact he was loitering in the vicinity of a divan with intent to smoke there.

3. Although under the new law the present offence was one of "burglary", it was not a serious offence of its kind. Having regard to the length of time since the Appellant's last conviction for dishonesty I called for a Social Welfare report and the report I have received is in some respects favourable to the Appellant. In all the circumstances I had decided that it would be just that the sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment be suspended for two years.

4. The appeal is allowed to that extent only.

 

12th September 1975.

 

Representation: