HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1994

R. v. WONG YAU HANG

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
16451-EN-1995-02-16

R. v. WONG YAU HANG

HTML content

HCMA001588/1994

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1588 OF 1994

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

____________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
WONG YAU HANGAppellant

____________

Coram : Hon Ryan, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 16 February 1995

Date of delivery of judgment : 16 February 1995

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

 

1. The appellant was convicted on a plea of guilty to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He now appeals against that sentence.

2. The brief facts were that the appellant and another man assaulted the complainant in a lift, inflicting facial injuries to the left eye, noise and right neck.

3. In mitigation it was said to the magistrate that the appellant had been assisting a friend who had the belief that his wife was having an extra marital affair with the complainant. The magistrate, in my view, quite rightly considered this to be a distasteful event in which the appellant and his friend had taken the law into their own hands, had trapped the complainant in a lift as part of a pre-planned assault. Those are, in my view, aggravating features of this case and the magistrate was right in taking these factors into account in imposing the sentence that he did. I do not consider that the sentence was in any way manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and the appeal is dismissed.

(T.J. Ryan)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Arthur for Crown

Miss Hopkin (D.L.A.) for Appellant