HKSAR v. Yeung To Poon
Read the full judgment text of CACC 261/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 March 2002.
1. The sentence which was imposed was in conformity with the tariff laid down in Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370. There is no reason why any part of the sentence should run concurrently with the possession offence. The applicant accepts that the offences arose out of separate incidents.
Cites 1 case
|
CACC000261/2001 CACC 261/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2001 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 525 OF 2001) ______________
______________ Coram: Hon Mayo VP in Court Date of Hearing: 22 March 2002 Date of Judgment: 22 March 2002 _____________ J U D G M E N T _____________ 1.The sentence which was imposed was in conformity with the tariff laid down in Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370. There is no reason why any part of the sentence should run concurrently with the possession offence. The applicant accepts that the offences arose out of separate incidents. 2.The application is dismissed. 3.I would point out that the applicant is still entitled to proceed with an appeal notwithstanding the fact that leave has been refused, but if he does so and the Court of Appeal takes the view that I have taken and considers that there is no merit in this application, it will very likely order that some of the time which he served will not count towards his total sentence.
Representation: Ms Anthea Pang, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Applicant in person |
Cases cited in this judgment