Law Man v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 83/1975

Court

Court of Appeal

Date19 May 1975

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000083/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN:
	LAW Man	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J. , Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 19th May, 1975.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. On the 1st April, 1975, the Full Court dealt with the case of LI Chau-wah v. The Queen, that was an appeal against sentence. The appellant in that case was convicted on two counts of robbery and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment for the first robbery and three years for the second robbery, the sentences to be concurrent. In addition, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm, that sentence to be consecutive to the other sentences. When passing sentence, the judge said that the sentence on the third charge was to be served "concurrent to the sentence on the first charge but consecutive to the sentence on the second charge".

2. As mentioned above, we have already dealt with the case of LI Chau-wah and in that case we ordered that the sentence of six months' imprisonment should be served concurrently with the sentence on the first charge, that is to say, that the appellant will have to serve a total period of three years' imprisonment.

3. The present appellant, LAW Man, who was charged with LI Chau-wah, was also convicted on two offences of robbery and one offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. He was sentenced to 1 ½ years' imprisonment on the first robbery charge and two years' imprisonment on the second robbery charge, the sentences to run concurrently. He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment on the third charge and again the judge ordered that this sentence should be concurrent to the sentence on the first charge but consecutive to the sentence on the second charge. In the event we granted leave to appeal against sentence out of time and ordered that the sentence on the third charge shall be concurrent with the sentences on the first and second charges, that is to say, the appellant, LAW Man, will serve a period of two years.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Carolan for Crown/respondent.