THE QUEEN v. TANG CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. TANG CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

The appeals were allowed in part because the aggregate sentences were excessive; the court reduced each theft sentence to three months while upholding the magistrates' orders as to concurrency, consecutiveness and activation of suspended sentences, resulting in revised totals of 20 months (Siu) and 18 months (Tang).

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. TANG CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; 1st Appellant in Cases No.76 & 78 of 1991 and 2nd Appellant in Cases No.77, 79 & 94 of 1991: TANG CHUN CHUEN; 2nd Appellant in Cases No.76 & 78 of 1991 and 1st Appellant in Cases No.77, 79 & 94 of 1991: SIU KAI SUN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 1991
Case Number
HCMA79/1991
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (sentence Varied)
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; theft sentences on all charges reduced to three months each; other sentencing orders (concurrent/consecutive and activation of suspended sentences) upheld.
Legal Topics
Totality Principle, Activation of Suspended Sentence, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Guilty Plea Credit, Previous Convictions and Sentencing History
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Theft Burglary Suspended Sentence Activation Totality Principle Activation of Suspended Sentence Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences +2 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

TANG CHUN CHUEN

1st Appellant in Cases No.76 & 78 of 1991 and 2nd Appellant in Cases No.77, 79 & 94 of 1991

SIU KAI SUN

2nd Appellant in Cases No.76 & 78 of 1991 and 1st Appellant in Cases No.77, 79 & 94 of 1991

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (sentence Varied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate failed to stand back and consider the totality of the sentences
  2. 2 Whether aggregate sentences were excessive having regard to the nature and value of the offences
  3. 3 Proper treatment of concurrent and consecutive sentences and activation of suspended sentences

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were allowed in part because the aggregate sentences were excessive; the court reduced each theft sentence to three months while upholding the magistrates' orders as to concurrency, consecutiveness and activation of suspended sentences, resulting in revised totals of 20 months (Siu) and 18 months (Tang).

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; theft sentences on all charges reduced to three months each; other sentencing orders (concurrent/consecutive and activation of suspended sentences) upheld.

Orders

  • Reduce sentences on all theft charges to three months each
  • Maintain orders as to concurrency and consecutiveness