The Attorney General v. Mak Kwok-kwong

CAAR000017/1976

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Pickering, J.A. & McMullin, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th October, 1976.

-----------------

DECISION

-----------------

1. The respondent pleaded guilty to five charges; two of possession of explosives, two of possession of offensive weapons in a public place and one charge of going equipped for stealing.

2. The respondent was stopped by the Police on the 12th April, 1976 and he was found to be carrying what might be described as 'a professional burglars kit'. He was taken by the Police to his house where further offensive weapons were found. Later on the same day some gelatine dynamite was discovered in his house and, also, a further quantity in the house of his aunt.

3. The respondent said in his defence that he had stolen the gelatine dynamite and some detonators and a battery-connecting device from a certain industrial site. He had these articles in his possession because he intended to learn the art of blasting fish.

4. The trial judge was told that the gelatine dynamite was in such a condition that it would be unwise to store it in a place to which people had access. However, the respondent did store this substance in two places which were situated in a crowded tenement, and he must be considered to have known the danger of such an act.

5. The respondent has a clear record and has, as we have said, pleaded guilty to the offences. In the event, the trial judge sentenced the respondent to two periods of eighteen months' imprisonment on the charges for being in possession of explosives and to six months for each of the two offences for being in possession of offensive weapons and for the offence of going equipped for stealing. He ordered that the two sentences of eighteen months should be served concurrently and that the three sentences of six months should also be served concurrently but consecutive to the sentences of eighteen months, thus the total sentence was two years' imprisonment.

6. We think that the sentences of eighteen months for the offences of possession of explosives were wrong and we substitute therefor a sentence of three years in each case, the sentences to be concurrent.

7. We view the fact that the judge imposed the very lenient sentence of six months' imprisonment for going equipped for stealing when, in effect, the respondent was found with a professional burglars kit, with some concern, but in the circumstances of this case and having regard to the totality of the sentence which we intend that the respondent shall serve, we do not intend to interfere with the sentences of six months' imprisonment as passed by the judge. Indeed, we think those sentences should be served concurrently with the sentence of three years' imprisonment which we have substituted for the two offences of being in possession of explosives. In the event, therefore, the total period of imprisonment which must be served by the respondent will be increased from two years to three years.

Representation:

Sceats for the Crown.

Respondent in person.