HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

HO CHEUK-WAH 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
6727-EN-1975-09-09

HO CHEUK-WAH v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000716/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 716 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN:
HO Cheuk-wahAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 9th September, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. In this case the appellant was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He appeals against his sentence and conviction.

2. The appellant was a public light bus driver and the Crown's case was that in an altercation with a taxi driver, he struck the taxi driver with a metal bar on the head causing him injury.

3. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Sedgwick, who appeared on the appellant's behalf, withdrew the appeal against conviction. However, he addressed the Court as to the sentence of six months' imprisonment. Mr. Sedgwick told the court that the record of the case gave a false impression of the incident. He said that the record could be read as suggesting that it was the appellant who struck a single blow and injured the taxi driver but that no other blows were struck.

4. In the evidence of the appellant he stated that he had injuries on his left eye. I was told that these injuries occurred at the same time as the injury was inflicted on the taxi driver. In fact, there was a considerable altercation and several other people were involved. The appellant admits that he struck one blow on the head of the taxi driver but also states, through his counsel, that his injury was such that he had been detained in hospital.

5. It would seem that the surrounding circumstances of the assault were not adequately explored in the court below. There is no doubt, however, that an assault was committed by the appellant. In the circumstances, I ordered that the sentence of six months passed on the appellant be suspended for a period of twelve months.

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Mr. Sedgwick (Hastings & Co. ) for appellant.

Miss Kam, c.c. for Crown/Respondent.