HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

TSANG SHEK-SUN 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
380-EN-1978-06-01

TSANG SHEK-SUN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001008/1977

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
  
 1977 No. 1008
 (Criminal)

 

BETWEEN  
 TSANG Shek-sunAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 1st June 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J.A.:

1. We gave leave to apply out of time for leave to appeal against sentence and are indebted to Mr. Chandler in the matter. He has drawn our attention to the fact that the sentence of four years' imprisonment to which the sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment imposed by the learned District Judge was made consecutive was itself imposed by a District Judge. Further more, counsel tells us that not only were the two offences such that they could properly have been charged together in the same charge sheet, but an application for consolidation was made and refused. He accepts that the sentences which could lawfully be imposed by a District Judge had they been tried together could not have exceeded seven years' imprisonment in the aggregate. The provisions of s. 82(2) of the District Court Ordinance have much in common with s. 57 of the Magistrates Ordinance and we do not say that the consecutive sentence was unlawful (see Kan Yat-fan v Reg. 1966 H.K.L.R. 301), but we are satisfied that a total of eight and a half years' imprisonment for these two offences was excessive, even bearing in mind that they were both of a kind which this court has said may well attract a sentence of six years' imprisonment. The Appellant was twenty-six years of age and he had a clear record before these offences were committed. We have had some difficulty in agreeing what is the proper sentence to substitute for that imposed by the learned judge, but have come to the conclusion that a sentence of five and a half years' imprisonment, concurrent with the sentence passed on 6th September 1977, would be appropriate. We allow the appeal and make an order to that effect.

  

1st June 1978.

 

Representation: