HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

CHOW HOK-MAN 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
6978-EN-1975-09-27

CHOW HOK-MAN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000767/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 767 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN:
CHOW Hok-manAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 27th September, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges, one, possession of dangerous drugs and two, possession of arms without a licence. He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on the first charge and to six months' imprisonment on the second charge. These sentences were properly ordered to be served consecutively. The magistrate also made an order subjecting the appellant to two years police supervision. At the trial the appellant also pleaded guilty to being a member of a triad society but no sentence was imposed for this offence.

2. The appellant told the court that he was a worker on night shift duty and that the order for police supervision would be a very great hardship to him, for he would be liable to be stopped by any police officer to and from his work at night.

3. This fact was not brought to the attention of the magistrate. In my view, this is not a suitable case for the imposition of a Police Supervision Order and I ordered the order to be rescinded. The sentences of imprisonment are to stand.

4. The appeal against sentences is therefore dismissed save that the order for police supervision is rescinded.

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Sharwood, c.c. for Respondent/Crown