The Attorney General v. Wu Kwok-keung @ Wu Wai-ming
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 10/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. On the 27th June, 1974, the respondent had 4 ½ months more to serve of a sentence of 30 months passed on him for the offence of wounding. On that date, he, together with others, escaped from the Chatham Road Centre, Kowloon. He was arrested in early March 1975 for a second offence of wounding. To that offence he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment consecutive to the sentence that he was already serving. Before another magistrate he pleaded guilty to the offence of esc
|
CAAR000010/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 10 OF 1975 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 9th May, 1975. ----------------- DECISION ----------------- 1. On the 27th June, 1974, the respondent had 4 ½ months more to serve of a sentence of 30 months passed on him for the offence of wounding. On that date, he, together with others, escaped from the Chatham Road Centre, Kowloon. He was arrested in early March 1975 for a second offence of wounding. To that offence he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment consecutive to the sentence that he was already serving. Before another magistrate he pleaded guilty to the offence of escaping from lawful custody. The magistrate sentenced the appellant to one month's imprisonment for this offence and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with the second offence of wounding. This second offence of wounding occurred at a time and place different from the offence of escaping from lawful custody. 2. In our view, it is wrong in principle to sentence a person for escaping from legal custody to a concurrent sentence of imprisonment, when the facts are as they are in this case. In his reasons for sentence the magistrate refers to section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. We do not think that that section is material so far as this case is concerned. We think that there is no other method of dealing with a case of this nature other than by an immediate custodial sentence which must be consecutive to any sentence which the person is already serving. 3. We order therefore that the sentence of one month's imprisonment passed for the offence of escaping from lawful custody be served consecutive to the two sentences passed on the respondent on the wounding charges.
Representation: Boy for the Attorney General/Applicant. Respondent in person. |