BabelCite

Wong Chi-hung v. The Queen

Read the full judgment text of CACC 304/1974 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.

1. The appellant was convicted of one offence of rape on the 26th April, 1974 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appealed against his conviction and sentence. His appeal against conviction was dismissed on the 9th August, 1974. Later, the court asked for a psychiatric report.

Case No.CACC 304/1974
Court
Court of Appeal
Date—
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC000304/1974

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 304 OF 1974

-----------------

BETWEEN:    
  WONG Chi-hung Appellant
  and  
  THE QUEEN Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., McMullin & Leonard, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 13th September, 1974.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant was convicted of one offence of rape on the 26th April, 1974 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appealed against his conviction and sentence. His appeal against conviction was dismissed on the 9th August, 1974. Later, the court asked for a psychiatric report.

2. The victim of the rape was a girl aged 12 and considerable force was used. The appellant has a previous record which shows that he was convicted in 1964 of indecent assault of a female and he was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of indecent assault in 1968. At the time of the commission of the present offence the appellant was 23 years old.

3. The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in England has recently laid down the circumstances in which a sentence of life imprisonment is justified in the case of R. v. Hodgson(1). The headnote of that case reads as follows:-

"A sentence of life imprisonment is justified when (1) the offence or offences are in themselves grave enough to require a very long sentence; (2) it appears from the nature of the offences or from the defendant's history that he is unstable and likely to commit such offences in the future; and (3) if the offences are committed the consequences to others may be specially injurious, as in the case of sexual offences or crimes of violence."

4. The report of the psychiatrist in this case states that the specialists have been unable to find any evidence of mental illness and further states that the appellant does not require psychiatric treatment.

5. Applying the principles of Hodgson(1) to the present case we think that the sentence of life imprisonment is wrong and we therefore allowed the appeal to the extent that a sentence of seven years is substituted for the present sentence.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Corrigan, S.C.C., for Crown/Respondent.

(1) (1968) 52 Cr. App.R. 113.