The Queen v. Lo Chi Keung
Read the full judgment text of CACC 454/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 March 1996.
1. The applicant faced two counts at the trial before Deputy Judge Yeung, as he then was, in the High Court. The first count was possession of arms without a licence. The second count was possession of ammunition without a licence. He was found guilty and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment for each, both sentences to run concurrently.
Cited by 6 cases
|
CACC000454/1993 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1993, No.454 --------------------
------------------- Coram: Yang, C.J., Bokhary and Liu, JJ.A. in Court Date of Hearing: 26 March 1996 Date of Judgment: 26 March 1996 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ----------------------- Liu JA: 1. The applicant faced two counts at the trial before Deputy Judge Yeung, as he then was, in the High Court. The first count was possession of arms without a licence. The second count was possession of ammunition without a licence. He was found guilty and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment for each, both sentences to run concurrently. 2. The applicant is 27 years old. He claimed that he possessed these articles for self-defence. They were a pistol together with nine live rounds and two grenades. His defence was rejected and the jury accordingly found him guilty. 3. He had a number of previous convictions: he was a member of a triad society; he was convicted of burglary and common assault. 4. He merely seeks a reduction on compassionate grounds by reason of the incurable disease of AIDS that he has contracted. We have read a letter to a Senior Medical Officer of the Correctional Services at Stanley from the Senior Medical Officer of the Department of Health dated 16 March 1996, in which it is confirmed that the applicant suffers from HIV infection. We have not been told that the applicant is near or at the terminal stage of his disease; nor we are advised that the Stanley Prison does not provide suitable and proper facilities for the care of the applicant. We can find no justification for considering a reduction of the sentences passed on the applicant on compassionate grounds. However, we have heard the submissions from Mr Lam. We rest assured that the authority will closely monitor the applicant's condition so as to permit special procedure for an earlier release of a man of his affliction to be duly invoked. 5. In the circumstances, his application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Representation: Mr William Lam of Crown Prosecutor for the respondent Lo Chi Keung, appellant in person |