HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1985

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YIU-CHI

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
39228-EN-1985-08-16

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YIU-CHI

HTML content

CACC000212/1985

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1985, No.212

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

 

and

 

CHAN YIU-CHI

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

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Cons & Kempster, JJ.A.

Date of judgment: 16th August 1985

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Sir Alan Hugging, V.-P.:

1. This was originally an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Applicant was convicted on one charge out of a number in the District Court, that one charge being of wounding with intent. He was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment. By leave of the court he has withdrawn his application for leave to appeal against conviction but has addressed us on the application in relation to sentence.

2. He points out that this incident was the result of bad blood which had existed for some time between the proprietors of the Paris and Peninsula Flower Shops. The judge referred to the incident as a vicious attack on an unsuspecting victim who was seated in a restaurant. There was no immediate provocation of any kind: the Applicant picked up a chopper and delivered one blow to the back of the victim - causing a wound no less than 22cm in length and 3cm in depth. The Applicant says that he is remorseful and he has drawn attention to the fact that on a subsequent occasion there was violence between the personnel of the two flower shops as a result of which he himself suffered injury, including the loss of a finger. That was not a cause of the present attack, nor was the trial judge satisfied that it was in the nature of a revere attack upon this Applicant.

3. We agree that this was a serious assault and that a substantial term of imprisonment was called for. We have been referred by counsel for the Crown to two previous cases. Each case, of course, must be regarded in the light of its own facts. The view we take of this sentence is that it was heavier than was necessary in all the circumstances and we think that justice will be done if we allow the application and the appeal and substitute a sentence of three years' imprisonment.

16th August 1985

Representation: