HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1991

THE QUEEN v. NGUYEN VAN THUONG

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
34909-EN-1992-03-03

THE QUEEN v. NGUYEN VAN THUONG

HTML content

HCMA001020/1991

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1020 OF 1991

_______________

BETWEEN

THE QUEENRespondent
AND
NGUYEN VAN THUONGAppellant

___________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Sears in Court

Date of Hearing: 3 March 1992

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 3 March 1992

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Vietnamese appeals against his conviction of Theft. I have looked at all the papers; the Magistrate has made very careful findings. I can see no flaw in his reasoning. The evidence satisfied him so that he was sure that this offence had been proved; the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. As far as the sentence is concerned, this Vietnamese came out of prison, and within one month committed another offence.

3. The Magistrate said he sentenced him to a severe sentence to punish him, so as to deter him. In my judgment, the correct sentence here was for the offence. The sentence should have been 15 months imprisonment. So, the appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence is reduced 15 months and 3 months consecutive for this assault on the police officer.

(R.A.W. Sears)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. Josiah Lee C.C. for the Crown.

Appellant in person: Nguyen Van Thuong (present).