HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1980

CHIU CHI MING 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
548-EN-1981-01-29

CHIU CHI MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001087/1980

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1980 No. 1087

 

BETWEEN  
 CHIU CHI MINGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Barker, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 29th January, 1981.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. Chiu Chi-ming you were convicted on two accounts of obtaining property by deception and you were sentenced to two years imprisonment on each charge concurrently. The magistrate who tried you initially was satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the evidence given by the witnesses for the prosecution was true. However, the magistrate reviewed the evidence and himself expressed a number of doubts arising from the evidence by the convictions might not be sustainable. Mr. Alderdice, who appears for the Crown, has very properly said that if the magistrate now has doubts about the matter he could not seek to support these convictions and having read the papers, with that view I entirely agree. The only question which has exercised my mind is whether in those circumstances I ought to order a retrial or to quash your convictions. In view of the fact that no fresh evidence is available and therefore the evidence would be given by the same witnesses I am of the view that it would not be proper to order a retrial and I accordingly quash both convictions and allow the appeal.

 

Representation:

Sujanani (D.L.A.) for Appellant

Alderdice for Crown/Respondent