HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

LUK KIN-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
6922-EN-1976-10-27

LUK KIN-HUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000757/1976

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1976 No. 757

 

BETWEEN  
 ----------------- 
 LUK KIN_HUNGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Pickering, J.A. and McMullin, Ag. J.A.

Date of Judgment: 27th October, 1976.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Pickering, J.A.:

1. The appellant was convicted on two charges of robbery and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment on the first charge and 2 years on the second charge both sentences to run consecutively. He is 17 years of age.

2. The robberies were of a type which has become all too prevalent, the appellant being, in each case, one of a group of men who burst into private premises brandishing knives. In one case the occupants of the premises were bound.

3. The appellant asked us to make his sentences concurrent and Mr. Lucas, for the Crown, commented that the sentences were "a bit high". This court can have no sympathy with anybody involved with offences of this nature and, in the case of an older man these sentences would have been impeccable. We consider however that in the case of a youth of 17 a five-year sentence is very heavy and it was on account of his age and for that reason only that we allowed the appeal and order the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. We emphasise however that the sentences were entirely apposite to the offences and their only defect was that they were not appropriately tailored to the offender.

 

 Representation:

Appellant in person.

Lucas for Crown/respondent.