HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

YIP KAU 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
2242-EN-1978-05-10

YIP KAU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000247/1978

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
on appeal from the District Court 
  
 1978 No. 247
 (Criminal)

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

 

BETWEEN  
 YIP KAUAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

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

Date of Judgment: 10th May, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Pickering, J.A.:

1. The appellant appealed against three concurrent sentences of six years' imprisonment upon three charges of robbery and one of four years' imprisonment, also concurrent, upon a charge of wounding with intent. There was no merit in his appeal and his application for leave was dismissed.

2. We observed however that the learned judge, at the time of imposing sentence, had ordered a suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment to be activated and to run consecutively to the total term of six years' imprisonment which he himself had imposed. The suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment however related to a charge of giving false information to a pawnbroker the maximum penalty for which is a fine of five hundred dollars (Cap. 166 section 31(2)). It follows that the original suspended sentence should never have been imposed and, having been imposed, was incapable of lawful activation. Accordingly although the appellant did not appeal against the activation of this sentence we set aside the order for its activation so that instead of serving a sentence of six years and three months' imprisonment he will now serve six years.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

D. Little for Crown/respondent.