HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

LO YIU FAI 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
3310-EN-1976-04-28

LO YIU FAI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000345/1976

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1976 No.345

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

  

BETWEEN  
 LO YIU FAIAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.A.

Date of Judgment: 28th April 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. I shall not say very much about this case. It is an appeal against a fine of $200 and an order for $100 compensation for criminal damage.

2. The Appellant kicked the door of a public light bus after an argument with the driver. It is still not clear to me how this argument arose or who was to blame for the argument. The learned magistrate said that he took a serious view of this case, and it is certainly to be hoped that drivers of motor vehicles will not settle their disputes in this manner. There is no indication on the record as to the amount of the damage but it is not suggested that $100 is unreasonable and I do not propose to interfere with that order.

3. The Appellant is asking me not to record a conviction because he wishes to go abroad and thinks that a conviction might hinder his application for the necessary papers. I think he is unduly pessimistic about the effect such a conviction might have on his application. I do not think that this is a proper case for not recording a conviction, but, having regard to all the circumstances, I do think that the fine is on the heavy side, and for the fine of $200 there will be substituted a fine of $100.

  

28th April 1976.

  

Representation: