Tam Wing Kwai v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 334/1971 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The Appellant was charged before the learned Magistrate with robbery. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
|
CACC000334/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 334 OF 1971 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 14th July, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was charged before the learned Magistrate with robbery. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. 2. The circumstances of the offence were that he and another man attacked someone on a staircase at 11:10 p.m. and stole his watch. One of the men held the victim by the neck while the other took the watch and also a sum of $30 in cash. This offence was never reported to the police but some time later the Appellant was arrested upon suspicion of connection with another offence, which has not been the subject of any charge. He admitted one further offence of robbery and asked that it be taken into consideration. The latter offence was reported to the police. The watch in respect of the substantive charge was found on the Appellant: the property in the second offence was never recovered. 3. The Appellant had been in prison until about a month before the first offence, having been sentenced to twelve months' and nine months' imprisonment concurrent for robbery with aggravation and larceny from the person. In addition he had previous convictions for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and had received treatment in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. 4. The learned Magistrate passed the maximum sentence which it was possible for him to impose, notwithstanding that neither of these offences could have been proved but for the Appellant's own confession. In respect of the substantive offence this goes beyond a mere plea of guilty: it involves the admission of an offence of which the police had no knowledge whatsoever. Although I have hesitated in the matter, I have come to the conclusion that these factors were not given the full weight which they perhaps deserve and I think that some slight reduction in this sentence ought to be made. In so saying, I fully appreciate that the substantive offence was a serious one involving, as it did, a measure of violence, but I think that this was a case which was properly tried in the Magistrate's Court and that the proper sentence would be one of 21 months' imprisonment. The appeal is allowed to that extent. 14th July, 1971. Representation: |