HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

WONG TAK-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
3611-EN-1978-05-29

WONG TAK-MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000373/1978

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
on appeal from the District Court 
  
 1978 No. 373
 (Criminal)

 

BETWEEN  
 WONG TAK-MINGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

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

Date of Judgment: 29th May, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Pickering, J.A.:

1. This is an appeal against concurrent sentences of four years' imprisonment for robbery and two months' imprisonment for being carried in a conveyance without authority. The robbery took place as long ago as September 1975 when the Appellant and another man entered a supermarket, produced knives and threatened the staff thereafter removing money from the cash registers. During the course of the robbery the Appellant's accomplice slashed a female cashier who tried to move away.

2. The Appellant was not arrested until towards the end of March of this year when he admitted the offences and pleaded guilty. We are unable to say that a sentence of four years' imprisonment for this robbery was out of the ordinary but this Court was impressed somewhat with the fact that in the two and a half years' intervening between the offence and his arrest the Appellant has kept out of trouble, has applied himself to a trade serving two years' apprenticeship as a barber and has subsequently been employed as a fully-fledged barber. He told us that in the intervening years he had become well aware that the way to succeed is to work hard and that he had reformed - a statement which appears to be borne out by his behaviour since the dates of these offences. We were impressed with his demeanour and apparent sincerity and, more as a gesture of encouragement than because the sentence was improper, allowed the application and reduced the sentence of four years' imprisonment on the charge of robbery to one of three years while leaving undisturbed the concurrent sentence of two months' imprisonment for being carried in a conveyance without authority.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

M.M. Sinclair for Crown/Respondent.