HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

TANG KWOK-KUN 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
7363-EN-1978-05-10

TANG KWOK-KUN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000088/1978

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
on appeal from the District Court 
  
 1978 No. 88
 (Criminal)

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

 

BETWEEN  
 TANG KWOK-KUNAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

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

Date of Judgment: 10th May, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Pickering, J.A.:

1. The appellant was convicted, after a trial, of theft and of the offence of going equipped for stealing having in the course of the same trial pleaded guilty to six charges of handling stolen property and six charges of giving false information to a pawnbroker. He appeals against sentence only and that only in respect of the three years' imprisonment imposed upon him on the theft charge.

2. There was no merit in this appeal and we dismissed it. We did observe however that in respect of the six charges of giving false information to a pawnbroker the appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment upon each charge those terms to run concurrently. Although the appellant has not appealed against those sentences we are obliged to interfere with them since they are not sentences authorised by law the maximum penalty for those offences being a fine of five hundred dollars (Cap. 166 section 31(2)). Accordingly we set aside the concurrent sentences of six months' imprisonment upon each of these charges and substitute an absolute discharge. There is however no effect upon the total term of imprisonment to be served which will remain at three years.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

D. Little for Crown/respondent.