HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

TSOI CHUNG-SHING 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
5987-EN-1976-11-11

TSOI CHUNG-SHING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000613/1976

  

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 No. 613 of 1976

  

BETWEEN:  
 TSOI Chung-shingAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Pickering, J.A., & McMullin, J.

Date of Judgment: 11th November, 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The appellant was found guilty of two charges of robbery and three other charges in connection with the taking of a vehicle without authority. He was sentenced to three years on the first charge of robbery and four years on the second charge of robbery, the sentences to be consecutively served. He was also sentenced to a few months' imprisonment in respect of the other three offences which were ordered to be served concurrently with the sentences passed on the robbery charges. So, in effect, the appellant faces a total sentence of seven years' imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction and we dismissed that appeal.

2. In each of the two robbery cases, the appellant, together with another person who was not before the court, robbed a taxi driver and in each case a weapon was used.

3. The appellant is a man of 26 years and has ten previous convictions which include a conviction for robbery as well as convictions for being in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place and assault.

4. However, we think that the overall period of seven years for these two offences is excessive. It is necessary that persons who rob taxi drivers should be severely dealt with and, in an ordinary case, such an offence attracts a three to four year sentence.

5. In the circumstances, we think that justice would best be done if we allow the appeal against sentence to the extent that the two sentences passed on the robbery charges are ordered to be concurrent sentences, concurrent that is with the other sentences passed on the other three charges and we so order.

  

  

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 President.

  

Representation:

G. Rodway (D.L.A.) for Appellant.

Stoppa for the Crown/Respondent.