HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. NG KAM KWAI

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
16517-EN-1996-02-28

THE QUEEN v. NG KAM KWAI

HTML content

HCMA000807/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 807 OF 1995

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
NG KAM KWAIAppellant

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

Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 14 February 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 28 February 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a conviction for an offence of wounding contrary to s.19 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 and a sentence of Training Centre. So far as the appeal against conviction was concerned, suffice it for me to say that I found no merit in the appeal grounds.

2. However, in relation to sentence, I was satisfied that the learned Magistrate's sentence in this case was manifestly excessive, and flew in the face of a probation report which suggested 12 months probation and which was, in all respects, favourable to the Appellant. In his Reasons for Sentence, the learned Magistrate simply said this:

" The Appellant could not be sentenced to Detention Centre because of his medical condition. D2 was sentenced to the Detention Centre.

I decided that the Training Centre would be appropriate for the Appellant."

3. I did not consider this to be sufficient reason for sending a first offender to a Training Centre. I regarded such a sentence as inappropriate and savage. I allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a 12 month Probation Order on condition that the Appellant work and live as directed by the Probation Officer.

Representation:

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

Mr Robert Pang, (Chan & Cheng), for Appellant

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