Kwan Hung Kei v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 227/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This Appellant was charged jointly with another man. Both were charged, amongst other things, with assault with intent to rob on two separate occasions. The other Defendant pleaded Guilty and was duly sentenced. This Appellant was tried, found Guilty and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment consecutive on the two charges and to a fine of $30 with a sentence of one day's imprisonment in default. The fine has not been paid.
|
CACC000227/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 227 OF 1975 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 16th April 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This Appellant was charged jointly with another man. Both were charged, amongst other things, with assault with intent to rob on two separate occasions. The other Defendant pleaded Guilty and was duly sentenced. This Appellant was tried, found Guilty and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment consecutive on the two charges and to a fine of $30 with a sentence of one day's imprisonment in default. The fine has not been paid. 2. In his Reasons the learned magistrate very properly has indicated that he cannot justify the fine and it is not supported by counsel for the Crown. This was obviously a slip on the part of the learned magistrate, who intended to order $30 compensation. However, I am bound by the order which was made and in my view it was not proper to impose a fine of $30 and to order that it be paid to the victim. I have no power to alter that order to one for payment of compensation, and obviously it would not be in the interest of the victim that I should do so. The appeal must therefore be allowed to the extent that the fine is set aside, and the alternative term of imprisonment must likewise be set aside. 3. The substance of the appeal was the appeal against the sentences of imprisonment and, indeed, it was only upon the motion of the Court that the Notice of Appeal was amended to include an appeal against the fine. The two offences were committed by the two Defendants acting together. On each occasion during the hours of darkness the men attacked an individual on his lawful occasions, pushed him to a convenient place and there threatened him - on one occasion with a knife. On that occasion this Appellant was chased by the police and during the chase turned on them holding the knife in his hand. However, on each occasion he managed to escape. When he was arrested he asked that 17 charges of robbery be taken into consideration. For some reason details of those offences do not appear to have been produced in the court below. However, in view of the very light sentences imposed it is not necessary to enquire too deeply into those offences. 4. There is no possible justification for complying with the Appellant's request that the sentences be ordered to run concurrently. Indeed, had the appeal not succeeded in part (in respect of the fine) I might very well have ordered that the sentences run from today. 5. Save to the extent indicated the appeal is dismissed. 16th April 1975. Representation: |