HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1980

CHEUNG KWAN 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
4162-EN-1980-05-30

CHEUNG KWAN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000424/1980

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 424 OF 1980

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

Between
Cheung KwanAppellant

AND

The QueenRespondent

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

Coram: Rhind, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 30 May 1980

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This appeal is against a twelve months' sentence of imprisonment for theft. The facts which the appellant admitted were that he stole a plastic bowl containing $34.20 from a hawker's stall in the middle of the day. Immediately after doing this, he was caught by the hawker who handed him over to the police. He admitted the offence to the police and pleaded guilty in court.

2. He is aged thirty-six, single and of no fixed abode.

3. His criminal record includes twelve convictions for offences involving dishonesty.

4. In view of the small value of the property involved and because of the absence of any aggravating features, I consider twelve months imprisonment excessive for this offence. It is a trite principle that a man is only to be sentenced for what he has done wrong, not for his record.

5. A term of six months imprisonment will be substituted for the original term.

(J. J. Rhind)
Judge of the High Court

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Miss Beeson, Crown Counsel, for respondent