HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. HON CHUN-LUI

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
36604-EN-1995-03-14

THE QUEEN v. HON CHUN-LUI

HTML content

HCMA000075/1995

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

 

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 75 OF 1995

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

 

BETWEEN  
 THE QUEEN 
 and 
 HON Chun-lui 

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

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Wong in Court

Date of Hearing: 14th March 1995

Date of Judgment: 14th March 1995

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was convicted before a magistrate of one charge of theft and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. He appeals against the sentence.

2. The appellant arrived in Hong Kong from China on 20th November 1994 on a two-way permit. He committed this offence three days later when he stole a leather briefcase belonging to a customer of a shop who put it on the floor when he was selecting clothes. He was spotted, stopped after chase and arrested. The briefcase contained, among other things, HK$1,200, US$227 and two visa cards.

3. The magistrate took the view that this was not a 'shop theft' in the usual nature of shoplifting and because of the prevalence of this type of offence in Hong Kong it would be necessary to pass a deterrent sentence. He considered suspended sentence but concluded this inappropriate. On all these, I have no quarrel with the magistrate.

4. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is a first offender, I am of the view that an immediate custodial sentence of 6 months imprisonment would be a sufficient deterrent. Accordingly I allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of 9 months imprisonment is reduced to 6 months.

 

 

 (Michael Wong)
 Judge of the High Court

 

Representation:

Mr. Y.M. Liu, S.C.C. for Crown

Mr. Eric Kwok (D.L.A.) for appellant