HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1986

THE QUEEN v. CHUNG PAK-CHUEN

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
39030-EN-1986-11-12

THE QUEEN v. CHUNG PAK-CHUEN

HTML content

CACC000429/1986

1986, No. 429

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

___________

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

and

CHUNG PAK-CHUEN

___________

Coram: Hon. Yang, J.A. and Hon. Penlington, J.

Date of hearing: 12th November 1986

Date of delivery of judgment: 12th November 1986

 

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Penlington, J.

1. On the 26th May 1986 in the early hours of the morning, a Madam Chan came downstairs from her home to the small shop which was underneath. She found that the light was on in the shop, the door had been prized open and she saw the applicant, whom she recognized as a neighbour, standing inside with a hammer and a screw-driver.

2. The applicant attacked Madam Chan with the hammer and she collapsed. She shouted out before doing so and her husband then came down and found her lying in a pool of blood. The assailant had made his escape.

3. On the 22nd of June Police enquiries having been carried out, the applicant was found and arrested. He admitted the offences of aggravated burglary and wounding with intent to disable and eventually pleaded guilty. He has a clear record. He apparently had been unemployed for some time and he tells us he had lost his money gambling and was seeking to get money to pay for a meal. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count, the sentences to be concurrent.

4. This was quite an unjustified attack on an elderly lady. The applicant is indeed fortunate that he did not cause considerably worse injuries than in fact he did.

5. The only matter which gives us some concern is that the wounding with intent was, under the circumstances, a much worse offence than the burglary. The sentence of five years imprisonment for that was, if anything, lenient, and even taking into account the mitigating factors. However, we do not propose to interfere with either sentence. We find there is no merit in this appeal and the application for leave is dismissed; the sentences will run as from today.

Representation:

Applicant, CHUNG Pak-chuen, in person

Mr M.D. Wilson, Counsel for Respondent