HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2002

HKSAR v. NGUYEN THI LAN

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
34524-EN-2002-09-10

HKSAR v. NGUYEN THI LAN

HTML content

HCMA000630/2002

HCMA 630/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 630 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 1464/2002)

____________

BETWEEN
HKSARRespondent
AND
NGUYEN THI LANAppellant

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court

Date of Hearing: 10 September 2002

Date of Judgment: 10 September 2002

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

1. After a brief Newton enquiry, during which the Appellant elected not to testify, the Magistrate found that the Appellant had been acting in concert with another in stealing a wallet from the closed handbag of a woman in shop in Spring Garden Lane, Wanchai. She had entered a plea of guilty but disputed the facts, asserting that she was acting alone.

2. The Magistrate found that the fact that this offence occurred in a crowded shop was an aggravating feature as was the fact that there was more than one perpetrator. For those reasons he took a starting point of 18 months imprisonment. The Appellant was a first offender. The starting point is in accordance with the authorities.

3. He reduced that by a period of four months to allow for the plea, disallowing the full one-third discount because of the necessity to hold the Newton enquiry. He was entitled to do that.

4. The Magistrate was aware of her family circumstances in Vietnam. Nothing in the letter read today justifies interfering with the sentence on humanitarian grounds.

5. The appeal is dismissed.

(A R Wright)
Deputy High Court Judge

Representation:

Mr P K Madigan, SGC, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant, in person, present