HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1997

HKSAR v. MAK CHIN WING

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
32644-EN-1998-02-17

HKSAR v. MAK CHIN WING

HTML content

HCMA001124/1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1124 OF 1997

____________

BETWEEN
HKSAR
AND
MAK CHIN WINGAppellant

____________

Coram: The Honourable Madam Justice Beeson in Court

Date of Hearing: 17 February 1998

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 17 February 1998

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

1. The Appellant appeals against sentences imposed on him under case WSC-15166/97 concerning 4 charges of Theft contrary to Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance and 2 charges of Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage by Deception contrary to Section 18(1) of the Theft Ordinance, and a further case, WSC-15167/97 which involved 7 charges of Theft and 3 charges of Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage by Deception. The charges related to offences where the Appellant was alleged to have applied for credit cards in the name of others and used those cards to unlawfully obtain cash and goods.

2. Today the Appellant advised the court that he wished to abandon his appeal and confirmed that he had seen the Magistrate's reasons for sentence. The Magistrate sentences were 9 months in respect of 15166 and 12 months in respect of 15167 which were ordered to run consecutively.

3. I note that I consider the Magistrate's sentence entirely appropriate.

4. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Representation:

Lily Ho, S.G.C., for DPP.

Mak Chin Wing, Appellant, in person.

(C.M. Beeson)
Judge of the Court of First Instance