HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1983

THE QUEEN v. CHU KWONG-WA

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
1245-EN-1984-04-05

THE QUEEN v. CHU KWONG-WA

HTML content

CACC001556/1983

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1983, No. 1556

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

The Queen

 

and

 

CHU Kwong-wa

__________

Coram: Roberts, C.J., Yang & Barker, JJ.A.

Date: 5th April 1984.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Barker, J.A.:

1. The applicant, CHU Kwong-wa, and two other men pleaded guilty to a charge of forcible detention and a charge of robbery.

2. It was a bad case.  All three of them invaded the house of a gentleman called Mr. YAU Man. It was at night.  One of them threatened him with a knife and the other two picked up choppers. Mr. YAU Man, his wife and his mother-in-law were all tied up.   Mr. YAU Man's premises were ransacked, and when the applicant and his fellow robbers only found $2,600 in them, he demanded $50,000 for the release of Mr. YAU Man's 18 month old son whom he kidnapped. That child was detained for some 30 hours and was only released when Mr. YAU paid $30,000 into the account of one of the applicant's colleagues.

3. It is true that the small child was apparently looked after as well as possible.  But the worry and grief that the applicant and his colleagues caused this child's parents must have been immense.

4. We know the sentences that were passed upon his colleagues.  They applied for leave to appeal against their sentences and had they come up in front of us a similar warning to that which we gave the applicant would have been given to them. Sensibly, they abandoned their applications.  The applicant did not, despite the warning which this Court gave to him this morning.

5. In our view, the sentence which was imposed upon the applicant was too low.  Had he not pleaded guilty the proper sentence to have passed upon him in respect of the charge of forcible detention would have been in the region of fourteen years.  Taking into account his plea of guilty, the proper sentence is twelve years.

6. Accordingly, on the first count of the indictment we set aside the sentence of nine and a half years' imprisonment and substitute a sentence of twelve years.  The sentence on the second count will remain at eight years and will run concurrently with the twelve.

Representation:

Applicant in person.

Mr. J.D. Kynoch for Crown/Respondent.