R. v. CHOW SZE HUNG

R. v. CHOW SZE HUNG

The appellant was 16 which does not amount to 'extreme youth' warranting significant mitigation for a violent robbery; the robbery was serious (attacking a 70-year-old with a pole to steal $60) so the 15-month robbery sentence was appropriate, the immigration offence sentence was consistent with precedent for youth,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
R. v. CHOW SZE HUNG
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; Appellant: CHOW SZE HUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 July 1996
Case Number
HCMA455/1996
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Robbery, Unlawful Remaining/illegal Entry, Sentencing Principles, Youth Mitigation, Totality Principle, Consecutive Sentences
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Immigration Law Sentencing Robbery Unlawful Remaining/illegal Entry Sentencing Principles Youth Mitigation Totality Principle +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CHOW SZE HUNG

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences were excessive
  2. 2 Whether appellant's youth (age 16) entitled him to further reduction
  3. 3 Whether sentences for robbery and immigration offence should run consecutively

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was 16 which does not amount to 'extreme youth' warranting significant mitigation for a violent robbery; the robbery was serious (attacking a 70-year-old with a pole to steal $60) so the 15-month robbery sentence was appropriate, the immigration offence sentence was consistent with precedent for youth, and the aggregate consecutive total of 30 months was not excessive; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences upheld
  • Robbery: 15 months imprisonment