HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

CHENG WAI-HUNG 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
804-EN-1976-12-04

CHENG WAI-HUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001209/1976

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1976 No. 1209

 

BETWEEN:  
 CHENG Wai-hungAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 4th December, 1976.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

2. The appellant was one of five persons who robbed a person in a public lavatory of a watch, two rings and two pens, the watch being recovered but not the other property.

3. The appellant has a record of three previous convictions which includes two cases of robbery for which he was imprisoned. His last previous conviction was on the 14th August this year when he was given a sentence of four months' imprisonment for claiming to be a member of a Triad Society. At the time of the trial of that offence, the authorities knew that he was a participant in the robbery which is the subject matter of this appeal. However, the authorities waited until the appellant had served his sentence of four months' imprisonment and arrested him on the present offence as he was leaving the prison.

4. Although the sentence of two years' imprisonment was not excessive I think in fairness to the appellant that sentence should be reduced by four months, which was the sentence passed for the previous offence. In the event therefore the appeal is allowed to the extent that a period of one year and eight months' imprisonment is substituted for the two years.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Lucas for the Crown/Respondent.