HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1995

R. v. MA KWOK YING

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
2136-EN-1995-08-11

R. v. MA KWOK YING

HTML content

CACC000237/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 237

(Criminal)

___________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
MA KWOK YING

___________

 

Coram: Hon. Yang C.J. & Ching J.A.

Date of hearing: 11 August 1995

Date of judgment: 11 August 1995

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Ching JA (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant in this matter applies for leave to appeal against sentence. He was found guilty on his own plea of six charges of burglary which took place within a period of three months. Indeed, the last five offences with which he was charged took place within a span of seven days. He received a sentence of 3½ years on each charge, all of them to run concurrently.

2. At the trial, facts were agreed by his counsel on his behalf. He now seeks to resile from one of the facts agreed which related to his being a look-out in relation to the 1st charge.

3. Whatever the truth may be, concerning that admission, it does relate only to the 1st charge, and it is not necessary in this application to come to any determination upon it.

4. Quite clearly, he has been guilty of all six of the offenses. He points out or he says that he has no similar previous convictions. But in fact, in 1976, when he was 19 years old, he had a conviction for theft. That was probably too long ago to be relevant now.

5. The court below took into account all the factors including the matters which he has advanced before us today. The court below would have taken a starting point of three years but for the multiplicity of the offences which caused it to use a starting point of four years and three months. The judge gave a discount of nine months. Nothing has been said which shows that either his starting point or his discount was wrong. Once again, this is an application that should never have been brought. The application is dismissed with three months loss of time.

(T. L. Yang)(Charles Ching)
Chief JusticeJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr John Reading, S.A.C.P., for Crown/Respondent

Applicant in person