HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1979

LAM LIN-SUM 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
7160-EN-1980-02-05

LAM LIN-SUM v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000811/1979

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL1979 No. 811
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
LAM Lin-sumAppellant

AND

THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.A., McMullin, J.A. and Yang, J.

Date of Judgment: 5 February 1980

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J.A.:

1. This Appellant applies for leave to appeal against a sentence of four years' imprisonment. There was a very serious offence here in which a gang armed with knives carried out a raid on a party which the judge accepted was a gambling party. A very large sum of money was stolen, a total of some $58,000. The learned judge passed a blanket sentence of four years' imprisonment on all the four accused who were actually tried before him, another man having failed to answer to his bail. The learned judge did not obtain any reports on this Appellant, but, as he was just twenty years old at the time of the offence and all the others were considerably older, we thought we ought to obtain some reports. It appears that the Appellant had an unfortunate childhood, his father having been shot dead in a robbery. We have reports from the probation officer and from the Commissioner of Prisons. It is not necessary to go into details. The Commissioner of Prisons advises that the Appellant is fit for detention in a detention centre but we have come to the conclusion that this is not a proper case for detention centre treatment: the offence is too serious. Nevertheless, having regard to the Appellant's age, we think that it would be appropriate, in the circumstances of the present case, to allow the appeal and to substitute a sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment, and we so order.

 

5th February 1980.