HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1989

THE QUEEN v. HUNG HO-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
35925-EN-1989-10-17

THE QUEEN v. HUNG HO-WAI

HTML content

HCMA001071/1989

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1071 OF 1989

_______________

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

AND

HUNG HO-WAI

____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Barnes in Court

Date of Hearing: 17 October 1989

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 17 October 1989

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

1. Mr. Lau, who appears for the appellant today has drawn my attention to the fact that there is now on the file a medical report from a Doctor CHAN Kwok-hung to the effect that the appellant when he was aged only about 1 or 2 months sustained a fall as a result or which he suffered concussion and a loss of consciousness. He had to be operated on in respect of a subdural haematoma and as a result of that operation he subsequently became and still is mentally retarded to a mile degree.

2. There was information before the learned magistrate about the appellant's mental condition. But the magistrate did not have that medical report, but merely opinions from the appellant's family. Those opinions glossed over the mental state to such an extent that it did not influence the magistrate in arriving at the proper sentence for this appellant. It seems to me that if the magistrate had that medical report he may have taken a different view. Because of his mental condition, the appellant is obviously not a person as criminally culpable when committing an offence such as this as one who has the benefit of full mental faculties.

3. The appellant has already been in custody for 1 ½ months. It seems to me that that is sufficient punishment by way of immediate custody and since the intake officer observed a sense of remorse in him. I see a no reason for him to continue to be in custody. What I propose to do, therefore, is to allow the appeal to an extent that the order for detention in a detention centre will be set aside and in lieu thereof I order that he be fined the sum of two thousands dollars. I further order that he pay that fine within 14 days from today.

(E. C. Barnes)

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. Alexander Lau instructed by M/s Lau, Wong & Chan for Appellant: HUNG Ho-wai

Mr. Steve CHUI, S.C.C. for Crown Prosecutor