R. v. TANG KEUNG

R. v. TANG KEUNG

The appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrate's 20 months imprisonment sentence because the magistrate properly accounted for the appellant's supporting role, guilty plea and clear record and the claimed family hardship did not amount to sufficient humanitarian grounds to depart from the So...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
R. v. TANG KEUNG
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; Appellant: TANG KEUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 July 1994
Case Number
HCMA376/1994
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence — Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Robbery, Illegal Stay/immigration Offence, Sentencing, Mitigating Circumstances
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Immigration Law Robbery Illegal Stay/immigration Offence Sentencing Mitigating Circumstances

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

TANG KEUNG

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence — Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 20 months sentence for robbery was excessive
  2. 2 Whether family hardship amounts to sufficient humanitarian grounds to depart from sentencing guidelines in So Man-king

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrate's 20 months imprisonment sentence because the magistrate properly accounted for the appellant's supporting role, guilty plea and clear record and the claimed family hardship did not amount to sufficient humanitarian grounds to depart from the So Man-king sentencing guidelines.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sentence of 20 months' imprisonment on the robbery charge upheld
  • Sentence of 15 months' imprisonment on the illegal stay/immigration charge to run concurrently upheld