Lui Yat-chiu v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 1121/1976

Court

Court of Appeal

Date23 Nov 1976

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC001121/1976

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
on appeal from the High Court	1976 No. 1121
	(Criminal)

BETWEEN:
	LUI Yat-chiu	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Pickering, J.A. McMullin, Acting J.A.

Date of Judgment: 23rd November, 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant, together with four other persons, were tried in the High Court on two counts of rape, two counts of false imprisonment and one count of indecent assault on a female. The jury found the appellant not guilty of rape and not guilty of false imprisonment but guilty of two counts of having carnal knowledge with a girl between the ages of 13 and 16 years and one count of indecent assault. He was sentenced by the trial judge to twelve months' imprisonment on the first count of carnal knowledge and to a consecutive sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment on the second count of carnal knowledge. In addition, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on the indecent assault count but that sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with the other sentences passed. In the event, therefore, he was sentenced to a total of two and a half years' imprisonment. He has appealed against these sentences.

2. The offences arose from an incident which occurred at the Tung Tau Estate, Kowloon in mid-November last year. The appellant, with other persons from the same resettlement estate, went out with at least three girls, who were the victims in this case, and after a certain amount of horseplay, these offences were committed.

3. This is not a very bad case of its sort. Both the victims involved in the two counts of carnal knowledge were 15 years old and one of them was not a virgin when the offence occurred. None of the three victims were physically hurt and from the evidence it would seem that at least the two victims of the carnal knowledge counts were not unaware of where their conduct that evening might lead.

4. The appellant is aged 20 and has a clear record. He has been already in custody for eight months. In the event, we feel that the sentence of 2 ½ years' imprisonment is excessive and we allow the appeal to the extent that sentences of nine months are substituted for each of the sentences on the first and second counts, such sentences to be served consecutively, namely a sentence of eighteen months is substituted for the sentence of 2 ½ years.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

Representation:

A.M. Niamatullah (Sousae & Hoosen) for Appellant.

Little for the Crown/Respondent.