HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

CHAN CHI-LAI 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
7389-EN-1975-11-08

CHAN CHI-LAI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000887/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 887 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:
CHAN Chi-laiAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 8th November, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. In this case the appellant was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence. I gave him leave to appeal out of time as he was a few days late through no fault of his own.

2. The appellant told me that he was already serving a sentence of 2½ years for robbery at the time the sentence in the present case was passed on him. This fact was not brought to the attention of the magistrate when the present sentence was passed which will take effect consecutively to the sentence of 2½ years. Although the sentence of eighteen months in the present use is a proper sentence in itself when added to the previous sentence of 2½ years, the overall sentence is manifestly excessive for the two offences. The appellant also told me that he is awaiting trial in the Supreme Court for further serious offences.

3. In the circumstances, the best thing to do in this case is to order that the sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment be served concurrently with the sentence of 2½ years and I order accordingly. The appeal against sentence will be allowed to this extent.

 

 

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Sharwood for crown.