HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

LO HOI-KWONG 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
4900-EN-1978-01-12

LO HOI-KWONG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000005/1978

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1978 No. 5

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

 

BETWEEN  
 LO Hoi-kwongAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins J.A.

Date of Judgment: 12th January 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant's plea in this case really is one for pity. I am sorry about his personal misfortunes, but the reasons that he has advanced do not justify my interfering with the sentences. However, there are other considerations which he has not mentioned. The sentences were sentences of six months' imprisonment on three charges. Two of those sentences, relating to possession of dangerous drugs or instruments for injecting dangerous drugs, were concurrent and the third one, for resisting arrest, was consecutive. I need say nothing about the sentences for possession of the drugs and the instruments because they were perfectly proper. Six months for resisting arrest may be regarded as heavy. In saying that I do not want it to be thought that I shall not at all times endeavour to support the police in their very difficult task, but I have a feeling in the present case that the Appellant was sentenced more for his past record than for this particular offence. What happened was that when he was arrested the Appellant twisted his body round and in so doing threw the police officer off balance, and they both rolled down the stairs. No doubt this was very unpleasant for the police officer, but it was not an intended consequence. Unfortunately the Appellant has been convicted of resisting arrest on three previous occasions and of assaulting a police officer on another occasion. As I say, I suspect that this weighed heavily with the magistrate. Even having regard to those previous offences I think that a sentence of six months' imprisonment was too much. The appeal will be allowed to the extent that the sentence on the third charge is reduced from six months to two months consecutive.

  

12th January 1978.

 

Representation: