HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

MAK WAI-MING 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
7236-EN-1977-09-10

MAK WAI-MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000836/1977

  

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 No. 836 of 1977

  

BETWEEN:  
 MAK Wai-mingAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C. J.

Date of Judgment: 10th September, 1977.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to the theft of two measuring cylinders from his employers, the Heng Tao Dyeing Factory. The value of these two cylinders is not stated in the record. The appellant was fined $350. He appealed against that sentence asking that a conviction be not recorded against him.

2. He told the court below that the recording of a conviction "might affect his future". In his Statement of Findings, the magistrate remarked that the defendant gave no supporting detail as to what his future was going to be.

3. Before me, he said that he had applied for a job with the Agricultural and Fisheries Department and that the recording of a conviction would affect his chances of employment in that capacity.

4. I agree with the Statement of Findings where the magistrate said that it is only in a relatively exceptional case that a conviction for a crime of this nature should not be recorded, but the appellant in this case has shown a real sense of remorse and that, together with the fact that he wishes to seek employment in a government department, is sufficient in my view not to record a conviction.

5. I therefore allow the appeal to the extent that the order of conviction be not recorded.

  

  

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Alderdice for the Crown/Respondent.