THE QUEEN v. CHENG KIT CHIU

THE QUEEN v. CHENG KIT CHIU

The robbery conviction was quashed because the magistrate misdirected on the specific intent requirement and self-induced drunkenness was not a proper basis to uphold that conviction; the 3-month imprisonment for criminal damage was manifestly excessive given the conduct and circumstances, and was properly reduced to a fine of $1,000 with a one-month default custodial term to run consecutively with any existing sentence.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. CHENG KIT CHIU
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Appellant: Cheng Kit Chiu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 October 1989
Case Number
HCMA1034/1989
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence (hearing and Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: robbery conviction and sentence quashed; criminal damage conviction upheld but sentence varied.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Criminal Damage, Self Induced Intoxication, Specific Intent, Misdirection at Trial, Sentence Substitution, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Sentencing Property Offences Offences Against the Person Robbery Criminal Damage Self Induced Intoxication Specific Intent +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Cheng Kit Chiu

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence (hearing and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether self-induced drunkenness constitutes a defence to robbery
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate misdirected the jury on specific intent for robbery
  3. 3 Whether a 3-month imprisonment for criminal damage was manifestly excessive and what the appropriate sentence is

Ratio Decidendi

The robbery conviction was quashed because the magistrate misdirected on the specific intent requirement and self-induced drunkenness was not a proper basis to uphold that conviction; the 3-month imprisonment for criminal damage was manifestly excessive given the conduct and circumstances, and was properly reduced to a fine of $1,000 with a one-month default custodial term to run consecutively with any existing sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: robbery conviction and sentence quashed; criminal damage conviction upheld but sentence varied.

Orders

  • Quash the conviction and sentence for robbery.
  • Quash the 3-month imprisonment sentence for criminal damage and in lieu substitute a fine of $1,000 payable within 14 days.