HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1985

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG CHAK MAN (D1) AND OTHERS

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
39067-EN-1986-04-29

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG CHAK MAN (D1) AND OTHERS

HTML content

CACC000468/1985

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1985, No. 468

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN
and
YEUNG CHAK MAND1
CHAU MING TAI D2
WONG KAM CHOI D3

------

Coram: Roberts, C.J., Yang, J.A. and Penlington, J.

Date of hearing: 29th April, 1986.

Date of delivery of judgment: 29th April, 1986.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

 

Yang, J.A.:

1. On the question of sentence we are of the view that the administering of chloroform and the subsequent removal of the vehicle were done in furtherance of the conspiracy to kidnap the lady in question. Whilst the administering of chloroform and the conspiracy could be regarded as two separate incidents, nevertheless they were so closely connected that consecutive sentences in our view might not be appropriate in the present case. Having regard to the distinct nature of these two offences and at the same time their close association, we think that justice will be served if we did the following:

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is treated as an appeal. The appeal is allowed. The sentence of 4 years on Count 1 and the sentence of  8  years on Count 2 to remain, but of the 4 years imposed under Count 1, 3 years will be served concurrently with Count 2 and 1 year consecutive to Count 2, thereby making a total of 9 years for each of the accused.

T.L. Yang

Justice of Appeal

Representation:

G. Alderdice (John Ip & Co.) for D1

S. Westbrook (Kwan & Kwan) for D2

G. Alderdice (Haldane Midgley & Co.) for D3

G.J.X. McCoy for D.P.P./Respondent