HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. NG POON

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
16560-EN-1995-12-19

THE QUEEN v. NG POON

HTML content

HCMA001073/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 1995

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
NG POONAppellant

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

Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 14 December 1995

Date of handing down judgment : 19 December 1995

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a suspended sentence of 3 months therefor.

2. As the decision of the learned Magistrate was based purely on his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses involved, and as I could find no error in the manner of his approaching his decision, I could not interfere with it. I dismissed the appeal against conviction.

3. On the matter of sentence, I was persuaded that a fine was an adequate penalty in the present case. There are no guidelines in these matters, but I felt that unless it was absolutely necessary to impose a custodial sentence, that should not be done. I therefore substituted a fine of HK$8,000 for the 3 month suspended sentence. I gave 7 days to pay. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Representation:

Mr Johnny Chan, C.C., for Crown

Mr Paul Wu (M/s T.C. Lau & Co) for Appellant

(J.M. Duffy)
Judge of the High Court