The Queen v. Wong Mun Yee

Read the full judgment text of HCMA 421/1988 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.

1. The appellant was convicted on two charges of theft by Mr Sweeney at Western Magistrates Court. The magistrate ordered the appellant to pay compensation of $3,500 and then adjourned the case until October for sentence.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCMA 421/1988
Court
High Court CFI
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMA000421/1988

1988, No. 421
(Criminal)

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

H E A D N O T E

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

COMPENSATION ORDER - S.98 MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE - not to be made in advance of sentence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 421 OF 1988

________________

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN Respondent
and
WONG MUN YEE Appellant

________________

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court.

Date of hearing: 8th July, 1988.

Date of delivery of judgment: 8th July, 1988.

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The appellant was convicted on two charges of theft by Mr Sweeney at Western Magistrates Court. The magistrate ordered the appellant to pay compensation of $3,500 and then adjourned the case until October for sentence.

2. There was no merit in the appeal against the conviction which was dismissed.

3. Section 98 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap. 227, provides: -

"Where a magistrate makes an order under S.36(1) or convicts a person of an offence and passes such sentence (if any) as may otherwise by law be passed, he may, in addition to the order or sentence, order the offender to pay to any aggrieved person such compensation for -

(a)    personal injury;

(b)    loss of or damage to property; or

(c)    both such injury and loss or damage, not exceeding $5,000, as he thinks reasonable."

4. If a magistrate considers a compensation order appropriate, he may make the order in addition to any sentence he passes. It is not intended that a compensation order should preface sentence. The two matters are part and parcel of the magistrate's adjudication and are properly considered at the same time.

5. The magistrate said he was adjourning this case for sentence and is presumably contemplating passing sentence on the appellant. If and when he does so, he may also make a compensation order under this section, or a restitution order under section. 30 of the Theft Ordinance.

6. Meanwhile the appeal is allowed and the order quashed.

( E. de B. Bewley )
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr J.A. Pethes, Senior Crown Counsel, for Respondent.

Miss Collette van der Eb, assigned by D.L.A., for Appellant.

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case