HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

R. v. LE QUANG THENG

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
16523-EN-1995-11-27

R. v. LE QUANG THENG

HTML content

HCMA000876/1995

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 876 OF 1995

___________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
LE QUANG THENGAppellant

___________

 

Coram: Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 21 November 1995

Date of handing down judgment: 27 November 1995

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This was an appeal against a sentence of 12 months for common assault. The appellant, a prisoner at Stanley Prison, having been convicted of an assault of a Correctional Services Officer.

2. I have no quarrel with the learned magistrate when he states quite correctly, in my view, that any sentence for an offence of this nature must be served consecutively with sentences the appellant is presently serving. However, I take issue with the learned magistrate when he imposes the maximum penalty for an offence of this nature. The maximum penalty should always be reserved for the worst case of its kind. This was not such a

case. I was satisfied that a sentence of 6 months was sufficient penalty in the circumstances, that sentence to be served consecutively with the appellant's present sentence for manslaughter.

3. I therefore allowed the appeal to that extent.

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

Representation:

Mr F. Veltro, S.C.C., for Crown

Mr Paul Tong, (D.L.A.), for Appellant