Chan Sik Wan v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 316/1971 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The Appellant was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment on each of two charges of theft, those sentences to run consecutively. The first offence was committed when the Appellant snatched a purse from a woman and the second when he snatched a wrist-watch from a boy of 15 years of age. Unhappily neither of these victims reported to the police but both offences were admitted by the Appellant under caution. He also admitted two other offences which he asked to be taken into consideration.
|
CACC000316/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 316 OF 1971 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 29th June, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment on each of two charges of theft, those sentences to run consecutively. The first offence was committed when the Appellant snatched a purse from a woman and the second when he snatched a wrist-watch from a boy of 15 years of age. Unhappily neither of these victims reported to the police but both offences were admitted by the Appellant under caution. He also admitted two other offences which he asked to be taken into consideration. 2. The Appellant alleged before the Magistrate that he stole because he was addicted to dangerous drugs, but owing to his past record he was thought unsuitable for treatment at the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. He has been convicted on six previous occasions and on the last occasion he was convicted on 5 charges of robbery with aggravation and one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which he went to prison for a total of 27 months. 3. The ground of appeal is that the sentence was unduly severe owing to his family circumstances. I do not think that those circumstances justify my interfering with the sentence. I have asked myself whether in view of the fact that the offences were not reported and that the Appellant himself confessed to them the sentences were, perhaps, heavier than I would myself have imposed but I certainly cannot say that they are wrong and the appeal is dismissed. 29th June, 1971. Representation: |