HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1994

R. v. HO WAI SING and Another

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
16442-EN-1995-05-23

R. v. HO WAI SING and Another

HTML content

HCMA001441/1994

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1441 OF 1994

____________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
HO WAI SING1st Appellant
LUI ON NING2nd Appellant

____________

 

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Sears in Court

Date of hearing: 23 May 1995

Date of judgment: 23 May 1995

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

 

1. This is an appeal from Ms. Au-Yeung at Fan Ling. These two Appellants were charged with making use of altered fittings of a vehicle for the purpose of smuggling and sentenced each to four months imprisonment. They were also charged with being in possession of dutiable goods, namely light diesel oil. The 1st Defendant was fined, the 2nd Defendant was sent to prison.

2. The circumstances were that the Customs and Excise had been keeping watch on these two and saw them transfer light diesel oil. They were clearly smuggling.

3. These are serious offences and the magistrate was in my judgment, quite right to impose a sentence of imprisonment. The only matter that really falls for consideration is whether or not this should be suspended. The 1st Defendant is a man of good character and in my judgment not sufficient weight was given by the magistrate to that, and his plea of guilty. Courts are empowered to pass suspended sentences for those who require it. It is not a soft option. It is still a punishment.

4. I therefore, consider that the 1st Defendant's sentence should have been suspended. It would cause, in my judgment, unfairness on the part of the 2nd Defendant were I also not to suspend that sentence. I think he is very lucky, he has got pervious convictions, but he pleaded guilty and in those circumstances, I am prepared to suspend the sentence for him as well.

Representation:

Miss Maria Ip, S.A.C.P. for Crown.

Mr. J.R.W. Jenkyn - Jones (Ho, Li, Lo, Lam & Yeung) for Appellants.

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