LI WAH v. THE QUEEN
- Citation
- LI WAH v. THE QUEEN
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 28 April 1969
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Dismissed
- Case number
- CACC210/1969
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 28 April 1969
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Dismissed
- Case number
- CACC210/1969
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The concurrent two-year sentences were appropriate given the offences and the appellant's extensive criminal record, and the Police Supervision Ordinance order made under s.31 by the Governor-in-Council is an executive act which this court cannot entertain on appeal.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; sentences of two years' imprisonment on each of the three counts to run concurrently are upheld.
02
Material facts
Parties
Li Wah
Appellant Counsel: In personThe Queen
Respondent Counsel: Mr. EvansAmounts and remedies
- Current Sentence Years: 2
- Prior Sentence Years (1965): 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Dismissed
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the two-year concurrent sentences for robbery with aggravation were excessive
- 02
Whether an order made by the Governor-in-Council under s.31 of the Police Supervision Ordinance on grounds of deportation is subject to appeal to this court
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Sought leniency and a chance; complained that a police supervision order stood against him and asserted he was not subject to deportation.
- Respondent
- Sentence was justified given the appellant's long record and the nature of the offences; the Governor-in-Council order under s.31 Police Supervision Ordinance is an executive act not subject to appeal to this court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Police Supervision Ordinance s.31 / Court's pronouncement
An order made by the Governor-in-Council under s.31 of the Police Supervision Ordinance is an executive act not subject to appeal to the court.
- 02
Common law sentencing principles as applied by the court
Sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion guided by gravity of offence and offender's record; concurrent two-year terms may be appropriate for multiple robberies with aggravation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The concurrent two-year sentences were appropriate given the offences and the appellant's extensive criminal record, and the Police Supervision Ordinance order made under s.31 by the Governor-in-Council is an executive act which this court cannot entertain on appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The appellant may have been fortunate the sentences were not heavier.
- The criminal record showed a significant history including a five-year sentence for robbery with aggravation and wounding in 1965.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed; sentences of two years' imprisonment on each of the three counts to run concurrently are upheld.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal · 28 April 1969
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal
Judgment· 28 April 1969
bjbj CACC000210/1969
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 1969. -----------------
BETWEEN
LI WAH Appellant
THE QUEEN Respondent Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 28th April, 1969. -----------------
JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins,J: In this case the appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment concurrent on three charges of robbery with aggravation. In each instance he was alleged to have committed the offence in company with another person and in two of them the culprits used weapons. The appellant has a long record of larcenies and associated crimes and was in fact sentenced to five years' imprisonment for robbery with aggravation and wounding in July of 1965. Before me the appellant has asked for a chance but he has also complained of a police supervision order which he says stands against him. The criminal record form which was before me did not show clearly how this order came to be made although there was some reference to a recommendation for police supervision. When I asked the appellant how his order came to be made he could not tell me but he said that he was not subject to deportation. It now appears, however, that on the 3rd January this year an order was made by the Governor-in-Council under s.31 of the Police Supervision Ordinance on the grounds that the appellant was liable to deportation. The making of that order was an Executive act against which no appeal lies to this court. The sentence of two years' imprisonment on these charges was well merited. Indeed I think the appellant may well be lucky that it was not more. The appeal is dismissed. 28th April, 1969. Representation: Applicant in person. Mr. Evans for Respondent. Judgment pronounced by Huggins J. in Court.
PAGE -
PAGE - &`#$ CACC000210/1969 LI WAH v. THE QUEEN Normal Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong SAR Judiciary Hong Kong SAR CACC000210/1969 LI WAH v. THE QUEEN Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 CACC000210/1969 LI WAH v. THE QUEEN Normal Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong SAR Judiciary Hong Kong SAR CACC000210/1969 LI WAH v. THE QUEEN Title
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.