HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1994

R. v. XU GI GUI

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another

Files (2)

6169-EN-1996-03-08

R. v. XU GI GUI

HTML content

CACC000634/1994

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 634
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
XU GI GUIApplicant

---------------------

Coram: Hon Litton, V.-P., Mortimer and Ching, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 8 March 1996

Date of judgment: 8 March 1996

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Litton, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against conviction out of time. He was convicted on 8 November 1994 after trial in the High Court before a judge and jury on a charge of wounding, contrary to Section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, and was sentenced to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment.

2. The offence occurred at the roof-top of No. 106 Wing Kwong Street, Kowloon on 28 November 1993. The victim was a 70 years old man. The injuries occurred as a result of a corrosive fluid being thrown on the victim by the applicant.

3. After trial the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence of two-and-a-half years' imprisonment. That application was heard by this court on 12 May 1995. The applicant did not at that time seek leave to appeal against his conviction. The events of the 28 November 1993 were thoroughly examined at the applicant's trial. The High Court judge gave an impeccable summing-up to the jury.

4. The applicant now says in this court that at his trial in November 1994 he had communication difficulties as he spoke little Cantonese, but that too was a matter which the judge had brought to the attention of the jury in the course of his summing-up.

5. There are no grounds for re-opening the conviction which occurred well over a year ago. The application is dismissed.

(Henry Litton)(Barry Mortimer)(Charles Ching)
Vice PresidentJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr Robert S.K. Lee (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent

Xu Gi-gui - Applicant in person

6168-EN-1995-05-12

R. v. XU GI GUI

HTML content

CACC000634A/1994

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 634
(Criminal)

___________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
XU GI GUI

___________

 

Coram: Hon Power, Ag. C.J. and Litton, V.-P. in Court

Date of hearing: 12 May 1995

Date of judgment: 12 May 1995

 

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

 

Litton, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted after trial before deputy judge Burrell and a jury on one count of wounding contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance. He now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of two-and-a-half years' imprisonment.

2. The offence occurred on 28 November 1993 at the roof top of No. 106 Wing Kwong Street, Kowloon. The victim was a 70-years-old man. The applicant at the time of the offence was 52 years old and had a clear record. The victim had corrosive fluid thrown on him by the applicant. The injuries were extensive and left permanent scars to the face and other parts of the body. The victim suffered permanent disability as a result of the attack. The judge described the injuries as one of the utmost severity and adverted to the fact that the maximum sentence for the offence was three years' imprisonment.

3. Having regard to the facts of the case the judge was entitled to sentence the applicant to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment. The sentence is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle and the application must be dismissed.

(N.P. Power)(Henry Litton)
Ag. Chief JusticeVice President

Representation:

Ms M.A. Crabtree (Crown Prosecutor) for the Respondent

Applicant in person