Pao Sai-cheung v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 240/1980 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 March 1980.
1. The appellant, Pao Sai Cheung, appealed against his convictions in North Kowloon Magistracy of the offences of theft - pickpocketing - and resisting arrest.
|
CACC000240/1980
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 240 OF 1980 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Silke, J. in Court Date of Judgment: 26 March 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant, Pao Sai Cheung, appealed against his convictions in North Kowloon Magistracy of the offences of theft - pickpocketing - and resisting arrest. 2. It transpired at an early stage of the appeal that his quarrel was, not with his convictions, but with the sentence of detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre passed upon him by the learned Magistrate. 3. I gave him leave to abandon his appeal against conviction and allowed him leave to appeal against his sentence out of time. 4. Let me say at once that the sentence passed was a very proper one and it would not be interferred with in normal circumstances. 5. However it transpired that shortly after he was sentenced to the Addiction Treatment Centre - a matter of days - he was convicted before another Magistrate and given a sentence of twenty one months imprisonment. 6. This sentence, although second in time, was, for some reason I fail to understand, to be served first. The result being that the appellant would not enter the Centre until he had served the full of his twenty one months sentence. 7. This I thought to be wrong in principle and in any event his transfer to an Addiction Treatment Centre while serving a sentence of imprisonment is covered by the provisions of section 8A of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance CAP 244. 8. It may very well be that the "imprisoning" Magistrate, if he will excuse the term, was unaware of the earlier sentence. The trial Magistrate there made no order that a conviction be recorded. So, under the provisions of section 4(4) of the Ordinance no conviction was recorded. 9. I thought the best course to take, and this without objection from the Crown, was to allow the appeal against sentence in part - quash the Detention Order and substitute therefor on the theft charge imprisonment for one year and on the resisting arrest charge imprisonment for six months: to run concurrently. And the sentences now imposed here to run concurrently with the sentence the appellant is serving. 10. The drafter of the charge might care to note that the Offences against the Person Ordinance is Chapter 212 of the Laws, not Chapter 228.
Representation: Appellant in person Mr. Aiken for Crown |