HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

CHIN KING-YIN AND ANOTHER 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
4890-EN-1978-06-17

CHIN KING-YIN AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000499/1978

  

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 1978 No. 499

  

BETWEEN:  
 CHIN King-yin 
 KWOK Kai-wingAppellants
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 17th June, 1978

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The two appellants were each found guilty of claiming to be a member of a triad society. Each was sentenced to be detained in a detention centre. I dismissed their appeals against conviction and I also dismissed the appeal of the first appellant against sentence.

2. Section 4(4) of the Detention Centres Ordinance reads as follows:-

"(4) A court shall not make a detention order against a young offender unless the Commissioner has not earlier than one month before the date of the order informed the court that in his opinion the young offender is suitable for detention and that a place is available for him in a detention centre."

3. The magistrate, in the case of the second appellant, asked for a report as to his suitability for detention in a detention centre. This was received on the 14th April and it stated that he was not suitable. The second appellant was examined by a psychiatrist and as a result of his findings a second report was submitted to the court by the Commissioner of Prisons. This stated that the second appellant was suitable for detention in a detention centre. The date of the report is the 18th May. The court, however, had sentenced the second appellant on the 1st May.

4. The provisions of section 4(4) of the Detention Centres Ordinance are mandatory. The appeal of the second appellant against sentence must be allowed to the extent that the period of detention in the detention centre will run from the date of the report which accepts the second appellant, namely May 18th, 1978.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Alderdice for the Crown/Respondent