HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1990

THE QUEEN v. SO FUK LIK

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
34681-EN-1991-07-23

THE QUEEN v. SO FUK LIK

HTML content

HCMA001594/1990

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1594 OF 1990

___________

BETWEEN

THE QUEENRespondent
AND
SO FUK LIKAppellant

__________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Barnes in Court

Date of Hearing: 23 July 1991

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 23 July 1991

 

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This appellant was with two others dealt with on the same occasion in the Magistrate's Court in respect of an offence of possession of an unlawfully obtained travel document. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months. One of the other defendants dealt with at the same time, for the same type of offence, was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months.

2. The reason for the difference in sentences was that, the age of this appellant was shown on the charge sheet as 20, and that of the other, who was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months, was shown as 18. It now appears that the correct date of this appellant at the time he was sentenced was also 18. There is no doubt from the record that, had the learned magistrate been aware of this fact, he would have sentenced this appellant to a sentence of imprisonment for 12 months.

3. For that reason and that reason only, I allow his appeal, quash the sentence, and substitute there the sentence which the learned magistrate would have imposed, had he been aware of the appellant's correct age.

4. The sentence I substitute is imprisonment for 12 months. The appeal was allowed to that extent.

(E.C. Barnes)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. McMaster, C.C. for Crown

Ms. Grace Wong (D.L.A.) for Appellant: So Fuk Lik