HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

TSANG CHING-ON 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
3553-EN-1977-06-03

TSANG CHING-ON v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000368/1977

IN THE SUPREME COURTCRIMINAL APPEAL
 1977 No. 368

BETWEEN  
 TSANG Ching-OnAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 3rd June, 1977.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant, a youth aged 17 years, pleaded guilty to the offence of causing wasteful employment of the Police contrary to section 91(2) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. A conviction was recorded and he was placed on probation for twelve months.

2. It appears from the findings of the magistrate that he would have liked to have recorded no conviction and to have made a probation order. He considered that he was unable to do this in law. Unfortunately, the provisions of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, Cap. 298 was not drawn to the magistrate's attention. That section does permit the course that he would have liked to have pursued.

3. In the event, I allowed this appeal to the extent that no conviction would be recorded against the appellant, but the probation order is to stand.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Hodge for crown.