HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1991

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG TAK YEE

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
26213-EN-1991-07-23

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG TAK YEE

HTML content

HCMA000104/1991

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEALS

___________

BETWEEN

THE QUEENRespondent
AND
CHEUNG TAK YEE
(Mag. App. No. 104 of 1991)
NG SIU HUNG

(Mag. App. No. 225 of 1991)

MA HAU SUM
(Mag. App. No. 234 of 1991)
AU SHUI KEUNG

Appellants

(Mag. App. No. 452 of 1991)

_____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Barnes in Court

Date of Hearing: 23 July 1991

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 23 July 1991

 

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

 

1. These four appeals have been dealt with together, because Mr. Lambert Lee of Counsel represents each appellant, and the appeal against sentence involves the same submission in each case. In each case the appellant was convicted of using an Identity Card belonging to another person, and remaining in Hong Kong without authority.

2. In each case the effective sentences imposed amounted to more than 15 months. Mr. Lee's submission is that that is wrong because such sentences are in conflict with the decisions in The Queen v. Wong Pik Yu M.A. No. 968/88, the Queen v. Ma Lung M.A. No. 1210/88, the Attorney General v. Lam Ping Chun Application for Review No. 10 of 1988, and the Queen v. Chung Siu Keung M.A. No. 1213/88.

3. Briefly, those decisions have laid down the principle that, where the production of the Identity Card is in the course of an application for employment, the offence is not the type which the Court of Appeal had in mind as an aggravating factor; that, according to the guidelines in So Man King, the sentences should be imprisonment for 15 months on each charge to be served concurrently.

4. In each of these cases, the appeal is allowed. The sentences imposed are quashed, and in lieu thereof sentences of 15 moths' imprisonment on each charge to be served concurrently will be imposed.

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

Representation:

Mr. J. McMaster, C.C. for Crown.

Mr. Lambert Lee (D.L.A.) for Appellants: Cheung Tak Yee, Ng Siu Hung, Ma Hau Sum and Au Shui Keung.