HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

LO KAI-TAI 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
6325-EN-1978-07-22

LO KAI-TAI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000657/1978

 

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
  
 1978 No. 657

 

BETWEEN:  
 LO Kai-taiAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 22nd July, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years on several occasions between July and August 1977 contrary to section 124(1) of the Crimes Ordinance.

2. This section of the Crimes Ordinance did not come into operation until January 1978. The appellant was therefore charged under the wrong section. He should have been charged under section 5 of the Protection of Women and Juveniles Ordinance which was still in force at the time the offence was alleged to have been committed.

3. The magistrate only became aware of this at the time he wrote his Statement of Findings. I am grateful to him for drawing the attention of the court to this matter.

4. The magistrate sentenced the appellant to be detained in a detention centre. The appellant appealed against that sentence.

5. In view of the above, I allowed the appellant to appeal against his conviction out of time (though he had pleaded guilty), I then quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Kitchell for crown