HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

LAU SIU 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
1852-EN-1977-03-10

LAU SIU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000212/1977

 

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 1977 No. 212

 

BETWEEN:  
 LAU SIUAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 10th March, 1977.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of bribery contrary to section 4(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence.

2. The appellant is a man of about 40 years of age. He has a long record of minor offences, chiefly consisting of narcotic offences. In February he was stopped by a police officer and questioned. He was found to be in possession of a considerable sum of money and an account book. The suspicions of the police officer were aroused and he was asked to report to the Central Police Station for further inquiries. On the way there, the appellant offered the police officer $300 to give him a chance and let him go. The appellant feared that he would be arrested and prosecuted for the offence of loitering.

3. The period of fifteen months' imprisonment for this offence in the particular circumstances of the case is, in my view, excessive and out of alignment with sentences given for similar offences. I therefore allow the appeal against sentence to the extent of reducing that sentence from fifteen months to six months' imprisonment.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Lucas for crown.