HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

YUEN CHI-WAI 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
6458-EN-1975-09-08

YUEN CHI-WAI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000677/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 677 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN:
YUEN Chi-waiAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 8th September, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of the offence of blackmail and theft and sentenced to twelve months for each offence, the sentences to be served concurrently.

2. This is a case where the appellant went into a cafe and asked for $10 from the proprietor and intimidating him by his presence.

3. However, during the trial it transpired that the proprietor, who gave evidence, admitted that the appellant said to him that he would return the $10 to the proprietor at a later date. It follows from this that it was not proved that the appellant intended permanently to deprive the owner of the $10 note. In the circumstances, the conviction for theft must be quashed and the sentence of twelve months passed on that count be set aside. In the event, this will make no difference to the appellant since the appeal against conviction and sentence in respect of the blackmail charge must be dismissed.

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Polson, c.c. for Crown/Respondent.