Cheung Kam-chiu v. The Queen

CACC000033/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 1972

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

Coram: Leonard J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 23rd February, 1972

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

JUDGMENT

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

Leonard J.:

1. This is an appeal against sentence. In the court below the appellant pleaded guilty to having had in his possession an offensive weapon, namely a dagger, and being unable to give a satisfactory account of his possession of it contrary to section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Chapter 228. He further pleaded guilty to 3 charges of theft from unknown private cars. The dagger was found in his possession in the course of a routine search carried out in the street. After his arrest he admitted to the 3 thefts the subject of the other 3 charges.

2. The proceeds of 2 of the thefts was recovered as a result of assistance given by the appellant to the police.

3. The appellant had had 7 previous convictions, 4 for larceny, 3 involving larceny from a vehicle. He has been to the training centre and later was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The learned magistrate sentenced the appellant to 2 months imprisonment for possession of the offensive weapon and 4 months imprisonment in respect of each of the 3 said offences all sentences to run consecutively. At the same time he dealt with the appellant for a further offence of possession of an instrument fit for an unlawful purpose, the appellant having previously been conditionally discharged for 12 months on his own recognizance in the sum of $200 in respect of this offence. The learned magistrate sentenced the appellant to 2 months imprisonment for the original offence and ordered that he should pay the sum of $200 the amount of his recognizance forthwith and otherwise that he should be sent to prison for a further term of 2 months. All the sentences imposed were ordered to run consecutively.

4. The knife or dagger the subject of the 1st charge was not available for my inspection.

5. It was clear, and indeed it was brought to my attention by Crown Counsel that but for the statement made by appellant to the police on his arrest the 3 offences of theft would never have come to light. In these circumstances, I consider that the sentences for theft should be concurrent with one another rather than consecutive but that they should be consecutive to the sentence for possession of the offensive weapon. I also consider that the sentence to be imposed in default of the payment of the amount of the recognizance should be concurrent with that imposed for the offence in respect of which forfeiture the recognizance was ordered but that these 2 sentences should be consecutive to those imposed on the other charges. I take this view because I consider that the total period of imprisonment imposed by the learned magistrate was out of proportion to the nature of the activity carried on by the appellant.

6. In the result the sentences on the B, C and D charges are to run concurrently but consecutively to the sentence on the A charge. The sentences for breach of bond were to run concurrently with one another but consecutively to sentences on the A, B, C and D charges so that a total term of 8 months imprisonment must be served in lieu of the term 18 months imprisonment.

23rd February, 1972

Representation:

Appellant in person.

E. Li for Respondent.