HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1979

KOO PO-KAN 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
442-EN-1980-01-15

KOO PO-KAN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001030/1979

          [Sentence varied on particular facts of the case.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL1979 No. 1030
(Criminal)
BETWEEN
KOO Po-kanAppellant
AND

THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.A., Cons and Yang, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 15 January 1980

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Cons, J.:

1. The Appellant and his friend held up the cashiers of a supermarket with a knife. It is fair to say that at the outset it was not the Appellant who held the knife, but his friend. However when his friend dropped it in the scuffle that ensued when other staff came to the help of the cashiers the Appellant made sure he picked it up. He took it with him as he ran away and used it to some effect upon the stomach of one of the constables who eventually caught him.

2. The learned trial judge sentenced him to a total of 5½ years on the various offences on which he was charged and ordered that period to be consecutive to a sentence of 5 years that the Appellant was currently serving for an attempted robbery of which he had been convicted only a few days earlier. That made a total of 10½ years.

3. Mr. Barretto, who appears for the Appellant, submits that if the two sets of offences had been tried together the cumulative total would not have been set as high as that. We agree. We think it would have been set at 6 or 7 years. And bearing in mind that the present offences were committed while the Appellant was on bail for the earlier offence we think 7 years is more appropriate. That can best be achieved in the present circumstances by increasing the sentences on the first two charges to 7 years each, that is the robbery and wounding charges, but making them run concurrently to each other and to all the other sentences in this or the earlier case.

4. We therefore give leave to appeal against sentence, allow the appeal and vary the sentences accordingly.

Representation:

R. Barretto (Director of Legal Aid) assigned for the Appellant.

G.W. Alderdice, Counsel for the Crown/Respondent.