HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

YEUNG LIN WING 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
7397-EN-1977-10-24

YEUNG LIN WING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000889/1977

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
on appeal from the District Court 
  
 1977 No. 889
 (Criminal)

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

 

BETWEEN  
 YEUNG LIN WINGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Pickering, J.A. & Leonard, J.

Date of Judgment: 24th October, 1977.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Pickering, J.A.:

1. The appellant was convicted upon 14 counts of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling two years and three months.

2. His appeal in regard to both conviction and sentence was without merit except in one respect. At the trial the learned judge noticed that a charge had been duplicated and clearly there was no evidence to support the duplicate charge which was the 14th Charge. In giving judgment the learned judge, by a slip of the tongue and of the pen said and recorded that there was no case to answer in respect of the 6th, 7th and 15th Charges whereas he had intended to say and record the 6th, 7th and 14th Charges. Having subsequently discovered his error but having no power to review the verdict, the learned judge gave leave to the accused to appeal against the conviction on the 14th Charge and the appeal in respect of that charge only is allowed. This has however no effect upon the total sentence.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Boase for Crown/respondent.