Liu Kam Wah v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 330/1971 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The Appellant was charged with possession of an offensive weapon, unlawful possession of suspected stolen property and resisting arrest. He eventually pleaded not guilty to all these charges but was convicted after a trial. The learned Magistrate imposed sentences of 3 months' imprisonment on each charge, the first two to run consecutively and the last concurrently.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACC000330/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 1971 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 30th June, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was charged with possession of an offensive weapon, unlawful possession of suspected stolen property and resisting arrest. He eventually pleaded not guilty to all these charges but was convicted after a trial. The learned Magistrate imposed sentences of 3 months' imprisonment on each charge, the first two to run consecutively and the last concurrently. 2. The Appellant was seen in the street by two police officers, one of whom knew him already. They went up to him and he tried to walk away. When he was eventually found, he was searched and there were found on him a scout knife which was at his waist, two watches and a cigarette lighter in his pocket and another watch on his wrist. 3. The notes of evidence are not entirely, probably owing to translation difficulties, clear but I think the first explanation the Appellant gave was that he had borrowed (not "lent") one of the watches and the lighter and that he had stolen one of the watches. He was taken to a police car but when he got there he struggled and pushed one of the constables away. His explanation of the knife was that he had it for self-defence and he gave unsatisfactory accounts about the watches. 4. The Appellant has a number of previous convictions for dishonesty, in respect of the first of which he was sent to a Training Centre. On a subsequent conviction for affray he was bound to be of good behaviour. Having regard to the Appellant's previous record I do not think that these sentences were in any way excessive. 30th June, 1971. Representation: |
Other judgments that cite this case