Chan Ping Wing v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 301/1971 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The Appellant was charged on three charges, Going Equipped for Stealing and two charges of Attempted Theft.
|
CACC000301/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 301 OF 1971 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 14th June, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was charged on three charges, Going Equipped for Stealing and two charges of Attempted Theft. 2. All the charges arise out of one incident. The Appellant was seen among some parked cars: he was peering into them and endeavouring to obtain access to them. He had in his possession a nail clipper which had been bent in such a way that it could be used to open locks and to turn ignition switches. He was seen to use this instrument in an attempt to obtain access to two cars. The police then arrested him and he told the police that his intention was to steal car radios - and both cars which he had been attacking contained radios. The police found that it was possible to start a car with this instrument. 3. The learned Magistrate said that in a normal case of a person convicted of going equipped for stealing he would impose a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment but that there were aggravating circumstances in this case. In particular, the Appellant had two previous convictions for attempting to take and drive away motor cars without the owner's consent and he told the police that he intended to use this instrument to start the ignition of one of the vehicles in order to facilitate his return to the Kowloon area. This was no doubt the gravamen of the offence as seen by the learned Magistrate for he said:
I entirely sympathise with that and have no doubt that morally the sentence was richly deserved but the offences charged did not relate to driving vehicles: they related to theft. The question arises whether his intention to drive away a vehicle without the consent of the owner was a relevant factor in passing sentence in respect of the offences charged. In view of his previous convictions and the fact that he was currently disqualified from driving, it would have been an extremely serious matter if he had carried out that intention but it must be said in his favour that there was no evidence of any act manifesting such an intention. The nature of the charges laid against him shows that the prosecution accepted his statement that up to the time of his arrest he was attempting to steal and had taken no steps towards the commission of the further offence which, with remarkable frankness, he admitted it was in his mind to commit. It was his good fortune that he was prevented from carrying out his intention and in my view it would be wrong, as a pure matter of law, that he should be punished more severely than he ought to be if he had not revealed his intention. I think the proper sentences would have been ones of 6 months' imprisonment and I shall make an order accordingly. 14th June, 1971. Representation: |