HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1983

LAM KAN 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
6827-EN-1983-07-18

LAM KAN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000736/1983

IN THE HIGH COURT

1983 No. 736

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

LAM KANAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent
---------

Coram: Jones J.

Date: 18th July, 1983.

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

 

1. On the 27th July 1982 the appellant, a boy now aged 16, but 15 at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault. After obtaining a probation officer's report and a reformatory school report he was sentenced to a period of detention in the Castle Peak Boys' Home pursuant to Section 15(1)(f) of the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance Cap. 226.

2. The appellant appeals against his sentence.

3. The facts reveal that on the 24th July 1982 the appellant forced the victim another boy to go into a side lane near Chung On Street, Tsuen Wan and asked him where he belonged to. The victim who had not seen the appellant before did not reply. The appellant proceeded to punch the victim on the face and kicked him in the back. The victim received an abrasion to his chin.

4. It is clear from the Probation Officer's report that the appellant lacked parental discipline. He has associated with triad members and is a delinquent. Probation was not recommended by the Probation Officer.

5. Mr. Lee for the appellant submitted that all the contents of the Probation Officer's report should not have been accepted by the learned magistrate as they related to extraneous matters not connected with the offence. I agree with the learned magistrate that the Probation Officer's report is to provide a full and detailed report for the assistance of the Court in determining the appropriate sentence. These reports were in any event read over and agreed by the appellant. Mr. Leo submitted that the learned magistrate should not have taken judicial notice of the words 'Where he belonged to as being triad language. I am unable to agree for these words are well known to be in general use by triad members or their associates.

6. Having considered the reports and all the circumstances, I am quite satisfied that the learned magistrate imposed the right sentence. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

(B.L. Jones)

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. J. Lee (K.Y. Woo & Co.) for Appellant.

Mr. Harris (Legal Department) for Crown/Respondent.