HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1979

WAI YAU 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
1539-EN-1979-04-23

WAI YAU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000182/1979

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL1979 No. 182
(Criminal)

 

BETWEEN:
WAI YauAppellant

AND

THE QUEENRespondent

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

Date of Judgment: 23 April 1979

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant and another man, who was a co-defendant in the court below, pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery, a charge of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place and a charge of professing to be a member of a triad society.

2. The facts were simple. The two men attacked and robbed a man in the street. They were both armed with a knife each and the victim was slightly hurt in the process of the robbery. They were caught very soon after they committed the offence by some passers-by. They both pleaded guilty. The sentences passed on the first appellant were three years' imprisonment on the first charge, nine months' on the second charge and one month on the third charge. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant appealed only against his three year sentence on the first charge.

3. When this case came before this court first we ordered that reports should be made as to the suitability of a sentence other than one of imprisonment. We have received those reports and they indicate that the Commissioner of Prisons considers that a sentence of detention in a training centre would be a suitable sentence.

4. It cannot be denied that the offence for which the appellant was sentenced was a serious robbery. However, the appellant was only 19 years' old at the time and the report shows that his personal circumstances were such that he might fairly be described as an underprivileged person. He appears to be an outgoing and a rather thought-less person and we consider that a period of training in a training centre would be of more benefit to him than a period of imprisonment.

5. We therefore granted the appellant leave to appeal out of time against the sentences of nine months and one month on the second and third charges and allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the sentences imposed in the court below and substituting therefor a sentence that he be detained in a training centre.

 

 

(Geoffrey Briggs)
President.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Griffiths for crown