Chan Kwok Yee v The Queen

CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date29 Sep 1971
Judgement NumberCACC599/1971
SubjectCriminal Appeal
CACC000599/1971 CHAN KWOK YEE v. THE QUEEN

CACC000599/1971

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599 OF 1971.

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

BETWEEN
CHAN KWOK YEE Appellant
and
THE QUEEN Respondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 29th September, 1971.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of burglary and two of theft. In chronological order, these offences were committed on the 3rd, 8th, 11th and 14th of June of this year.

2. On the 14th June, the appellant was ambushed by police officers as the result of information received from an informer. The appellant thereupon confessed that a fountain pen found upon him, together with a camera, had been stolen by him that afternoon. These two items formed the subject matter of the "B" charge. Whilst in custody the appellant confessed to the offences committed on the 3rd, 8th and 11th of June respectively.

3. The appeal is against sentence only; the four sentences imposed by the learned magistrate total 16 months imprisonment. In his "Application for Extension of Time for Giving Notice of Appeal against Sentence", the appellant stated that upon the dates of the three offences first committed, he was actually in prison, having been released only on the 12th of June. Upon the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Soh, for the Crown, confirmed that this was the case and stated that he did not seek to uphold even the convictions upon these three charges.

4. It follows that I must treat this appeal as an appeal against conviction and the appeal succeeds in respect of the three offences allegedly committed by the appellant on the 3rd, 8th and 11th of June, the convictions and sentences thereon being set aside.

5. In his "Application for Extension of Time for Giving Notice of Appeal against Sentence", dated 6th August, the appellant said that he had been suffering from a continuous headache from the time of his arrest on the 14th of June, until the 3rd of August, and that it was only upon the 3rd of August that he fully realised that he had been wrongly convicted. When I asked the appellant why he had confessed to crimes which he could not have committed, he told me that his brain was defective, a statement which did not appear to be borne out by his attitude and clarity in the dock, and the true...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT