HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1987

THE QUEEN v. HAU TAI WAI

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
57746-EN-1987-11-24

THE QUEEN v. HAU TAI WAI

HTML content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 769 OF 1987

__________________

BETWEEN

 

THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

and

 

 

HAU Tai-wai

Appellant

__________________

 

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 24th November 1987

Date of delivery of judgment: 24th November 1987

 

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to theft and was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment. He was caught red-handed pick-pocketing a wallet on a train at Lowu.

2. The appellant is 29 and has four previous convictions for theft. He has been to prison only once before when he was sentenced to eight months in January, 1986.

3. In his statement of findings the learned magistrate points out that this offence is all too prevalent on trains between Hong Kong and China and says he considers that the starting point for the sentencer should be two years.

4. Having regard to the recent authorities cited by counsel, I am satisfied that this is too high. In an ordinary case, such as this, the starting point should be in the region of 15 months.

5. The only mitigating factor was the plea of guilty, for which the magistrate allowed a discount of four months.

6. The appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced to 12 months imprisonment.

 

 

 

(E. de B. Bewley)
Judge of the High Court

 

Mr. Eddie Sean, c.c. for Crown.

Mr. R. Murray, instructed by DLA, for appellant.