HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

TSE SUN-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
7052-EN-1975-10-04

TSE SUN-MAN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000781/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 781 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:
TSE Sun-manAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 4th October, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. In this case the appellant was convicted of attempted theft and for going equipped for stealing. He was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for each offence, the sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.

2. The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence. The facts were that the appellant was seen by two police officers on duty trying to unlock parked cars. He was arrested and was found to have what was described as an "all purpose key" on his person.

3. The appellant advanced no real reason why his appeal against conviction should be allowed and I dismissed that appeal.

4. The appellant has seven previous convictions including one for taking a conveyance without authority. This was in 1974.

5. I do not think that the magistrate was right in principle in this case when he imposed consecutive sentences. The "all purpose key" found on the appellant was used by the appellant in his attempts to steal either the car or property inside the car. The two charges relate to one offence. For this reason I allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent that I ordered the two sentences to be served concurrently.

 

 

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

F. Wong for crown/respondent.