HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. LIU TZU CHENG

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
32172-EN-1995-12-19

THE QUEEN v. LIU TZU CHENG

HTML content

HCMA000844/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.844 OF 1995

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
LIU TZU CHENGAppellant

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

Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 13 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 sentence of 6 months imposed for an offence of wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212. These offences involved the infliction of very minor wounds with a screwdriver. In his Reasons for Sentence, the learned Magistrate decided that the only method of dealing with this offence was by way of an immediate custodial sentence.

2. It seemed to me that in accordance with the evidence of one of the Crown witnesses, had this appellant meant to cause serious injury he could well have done so. Quite clearly, he did not intend any serious injury whatsoever. The injuries themselves were minor in the extreme. I felt that an immediate custodial sentence was unnecessary in the circumstances. I was told that the appellant had already served 21/2 months of his sentence before being allowed bail pending his appeal. I considered that to be more than adequate punishment, and so I allowed the appeal so that he would not have to serve any further term of imprisonment.

Representation:

Mr McMeans, S.C.C., for Crown

Mr Michael Poll (D.L.A.) for Appellant

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