The Attorney General v. Fung Sik-pui
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 29/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The respondent pleaded guilty to one offence of impersonating a police officer and to one offence of indecent assault on a female. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on the first charge and to three months consecutive on the second charge. Both sentences being suspended for twelve months.
|
CAAR000029/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 29 OF 1975 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ. Date of Judgment: 5th January, 1975. ----------------- DECISION ----------------- 1. The respondent pleaded guilty to one offence of impersonating a police officer and to one offence of indecent assault on a female. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on the first charge and to three months consecutive on the second charge. Both sentences being suspended for twelve months. 2. The facts were that at about 1945 hours on the 20th November, 1975, the victim, a girl who was 11 years of age was going to attend school. She walked up the staircase leading to a first floor when the respondent put his hand on her shoulder and took out a blue booklet from his pocket and told her that he was a police officer. He then told her that he was investigating a case of manufacturing dangerous drugs. He then shook the girl by the hand and indecently assaulted her with his other hand. 3. The Attorney General brought these proceedings because he considered that a suspended sentence so far as the first charge was concerned was wrong in principle and a suspended sentence so far as the second charge was concerned was wrong in law. Indecent assault of a female is one of the cases which is 'excepted' in the provisions of section 109A and 109G and section 124 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. 4. The case first came before the court on December 23rd, 1975, and at that time the court had no knowledge as to how old the girl was. Her age is not referred to In the proceedings in the lower courts 5. The court asked for reports from a psychiatrist and a probation officer. Upon reading these reports, it appears that the respondent is a man of 23 years and has a clear record. The psychiatrist's report states that he has no abnormal or psychotic tendencies and the report from the probation officer is both helpful and much in favour of the appellant. 6. In the circumstances, we thought that the best course to take in this case is to set aside the sentences imposed upon him and to substitute an order for probation for two years and we ordered accordingly.
Representation: Penlington for crown/applicant. Miss M. Tam (D.L.A.) for respondent. |