HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1986

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG MAN

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
38928-EN-1986-09-30

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG MAN

HTML content

CACC000353/1986

86 No. 353

(Criminal)

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

___________

BETWEEN

THE QUEENRespondent

and

YEUNG MANApplicant

___________

 

Coram: Hon. Li, V-P, Yang, J.A. & Penlington, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 30th September 1986

Date of delivery of judgment: 30th September 1986

_________

JUDGMENT

_________

Penlington, J.

1. The applicant in this case was originally charged with robbery. However the Crown elected to accept a plea of guilty to handling stolen goods under S. 24 of the Theft Ordinance.

2. The facts as agreed by the applicant were not, perhaps, as full as they might have been but were that a Rolex watch was taken by force from a lady in a lift in April 1985. In July of the same year, during course of routine enquiries, the police found the watch in a pawnshop and it was identified by the victim as being hers. It was agreed that one NG Kam-man had pawned the watch, acting on behalf of the applicant who had given it to him. The applicant pleaded guilty to the fact that he had handled this watch knowing it to be stolen.

3. The applicant has a bad record of previous convictions going back to 1966 when he was put on probation, and in 1971 he was sent to a training centre for robbery. Since then, he has committed further robberies, including one in 1981 when he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. Handling of stolen. goods has always been regarded as a serious offence, almost as serious as actually taking part in the theft itself. In view of the circumstances of this case, the previous record of the applicant, and taking into account his plea of guilty, a sentence of 3 years imprisonment is certainly not excessive. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Applicant, YEUNG Man, in person

Mr Hodge, D.C.P. for respondent