HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1994

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG SHI KEUNG

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
7367-EN-1996-05-23

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG SHI KEUNG

HTML content

CACC000088/1994

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

 

 1994, No. 88
 (Criminal)

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

 

BETWEEN  
 THE QUEEN 
 and 
 LEUNG SHI KEUNG 

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

Coram: Hon. Litton VP, Liu & Mayo JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 23 May, 1996

Date of Judgment: 23 May, 1996

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Liu JA:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence out of time. It is quite unnecessary to consider it in any great detail. It would be beneficial to the applicant if we were to go immediately to the bone of contention in his grounds of appeal, which apparently has caused him considerable anxiety. The applicant is disturbed by his erroneous impression that he is not enjoying the advantage of the period of lawful detention prior to the date of his sentence for computing his period of incarceration. For the purpose of this case, the law says in s. 67A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance that a prisoner, after sentence, would be entitled to a reduction of the same period of time represented by his previous time in custody as ordered by a court of law. The applicant's custody prior to his sentence was so ordered by a court of law. And therefore he would be entitled, as a matter of law, to have that period taken into account in the computation of his period of incarceration. His anxiety is unfounded. His apprehension of the way in which his sentence is to be calculated is, as I have said, erroneous. Hence the entire exercise would be one in futility as nothing could be made of the complaint in his grounds of appeal were he granted leave to appeal against his sentence out of time. With that explanation given for the benefit of the applicant, it remains for this court to dismiss his application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time.

2. Application dismissed.

 

 

(Henry Litton)(B Liu)(Simon Mayo)
Vice PresidentJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

 

Representation:

Leung Shi Keung, applicant in person

Mr Derek Pang APCC (Ag.) Crown Prosecutor for respondent