HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG SIU KWAN and Another

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
16507-EN-1996-01-03

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG SIU KWAN and Another

HTML content

HCMA000650/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 650 OF 1995

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
LEUNG SIU KWAN1st Appellant
LEUNG SIU FUNG3rd Appellant

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

Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 22 December 1995

Date of handing down judgment : 3 January 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

1. This was an appeal originally only against conviction, but I granted leave for an appeal against sentence out of time. So far as the appeal against conviction was concerned, suffice it for me to say that I found that there were no grounds for interfering with the conviction.

2. However, so far as the appeal against sentence was concerned, I was satisfied, having been provided with a table of sentences for similar offences in the Mongkok and Shamshuipo Districts, that an immediate custodial sentence was unnecessary in this case. This was certainly not the worse case of its kind and did not involve large profits or the corruption of the young. I therefore allowed the appeal against sentence and for the sentence of six months imprisonment imposed on the 1st Appellant, I substituted a fine of $15,000 allowing six weeks for payment. So far as the 2nd Appellant was concerned, I suspended the sentence of three months imprisonment for a period of one year, and imposed a fine of $15,000, allowing six weeks to pay.

Representation:

Mr Jackson Poon, S.C.C., for Crown

Mr Christopher Grounds (Ng & Lam), for both Appellants

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