HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. CHUNG LAI-CHING

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
32179-EN-1996-01-09

THE QUEEN v. CHUNG LAI-CHING

HTML content

HCMA000944/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 944 OF 1995

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
CHUNG LAI-CHINGAppellant

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

Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 4 January 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 9 January 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a sentence of 15 months imposed for possession of a forged Hong Kong Identity Card and remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration. The sentences imposed were 15 months on each charge and they were ordered to be served concurrently.

2. These sentences were perfectly proper and there was no basis in law for my interfering with them. However, submissions were made to me on the basis that the appellant's mother was in a critical state, suffering from kidney disease, and required a kidney transplant to keep her alive. It was submitted that the most appropriate donor would be her only daughter, the appellant. The appellant produced certificates in support of this contention. These certificates take two or three months to ratify, but the appellant was due to be released in less than that time. As an act of mercy, therefore, I allowed the appeal and ordered that she be released immediately.

Representation:

Miss Yasmin Mahomed, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant in person

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