HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1987

THE QUEEN v. VU DINH KHOAT

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
57821-EN-1987-12-04

THE QUEEN v. VU DINH KHOAT

HTML content

MCA No. 839 OF 1987

Pickpocket – Sentence – 18 months outside normal range – reduced to 12 months.

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 839 OF 1987

___________

BETWEEN

 

THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

and

 

 

Vu Dinh Khoat

Appellant

___________

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 4th December 1987

Date of delivery of judgment: 4th December 1987

 

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

 

1. The appellant was convicted of theft and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

2. It was a bad case of pickpocketing, in which a term of three, including the appellant, took a wallet from the handbag of a tourist. Fortunately the theft had been observed by the police Anti-pickpocket Squad and the appellant was arrested.

3. The appellant is 21 and has two previous convictions in 1985 for attempted theft. His family have recently arrived from Vietnam and are in camp. It is submitted that he stole in order to be able to provide them with food and clothing.

4. There was nothing else to be said in mitigation. The sentence however is outside the normal range for this offence, which is 9-15 months. In R. v. Yu Lap-wai MA 866 of 1986, the sentence of 2 years was reduced to 15 months in the case of another, but older, professional pickpocket, who had a much worse record.

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

 

 

 

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

 

Mr. Stephen Wong, Crown Counsel, for Respondent

Miss Josephine Pinto (assigned by D.L.A.) for Appellant