HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1991

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG TSANG WING

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
25933-EN-1992-02-14

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG TSANG WING

HTML content

HCMA001134/1991

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1134 OF 1991

______________

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Respondent

AND

YEUNG TSANG WING

Appellant

__________

Coram: Hon. Sears. J. in Court

Date of Hearing: 16 January 1992 and 14 February 1992

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 14 February 1992

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

 

1. This is an appeal against the conviction by Miss Chainrai at San Po Kong Magistrates' Court where the Appellant was convicted with remaining in Hong Kong without authority and being in possession of an offensive weapon. He was sentenced to 15 months and 6 months consecutive, the total sentence is 21 months. He has very sensibly abandoned his appeal against conviction. The Magistrate approached the matter in a very careful way and very properly convicted this man. It seems to me, however, on the current practice, that he would have been deported to China straightaway but he must serve 15 months' imprisonment because of the offence. In those circumstances, it would be unjust to order the sentences to be consecutive. It should be concurrent; the sentence therefore is 15 months. I also note that he was arrested on the 5th September and sentenced on the 17th November.

2. The practice, in my judgment, is to take into account the fact that the imprisonment should date from the date of arrest Otherwise the person loses the remission normally available to prisoners in Hong Kong. So your appeal against sentence is allowed and your sentence is reduced to 15 months which will run from the 15th September.

(R.A.W. Sears)

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. S.R. Bailey, S.A.C.P. for the Crown.

Mr. Ronald Tang assigned by DLA for Appellant,