HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

HUI CHI-CHUNG 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
38761-EN-1976-02-12

HUI CHI-CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000133/1976

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 133 OF 1976

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

 

BETWEEN:  
 HUI Chi-chungAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 12th February, 1976.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences, one of being a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence and, two, of going equipped for stealing. The magistrate imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment on the first charge and three months' imprisonment on the second charge, the sentences to run concurrently. This was a slip on the magistrate's part because the maximum penalty for the first charge is a term of imprisonment of three months. The magistrate obviously intended that a sentence of nine months should be imposed for these two offences and I think that justice would best be served if the sentence in the court below is corrected so that on the first change, the appellant is sentenced to three months' imprisonment and on the second charge he is sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. The sentences to run concurrently. This will correct the unfortunate mistake.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Whetter for crown.