Chow Hung Sum v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 341/1971 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The Appellant has appealed against sentences of nine months' and three months' imprisonment concurrent for unlawful possession of a dangerous drug and resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty.
|
CACC000341/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 1971 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant has appealed against sentences of nine months' and three months' imprisonment concurrent for unlawful possession of a dangerous drug and resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty. 2. Two police officers were walking in the street when they saw the Appellant. He was carrying something in his hand but the attention of the police was attracted to him by the fact that, on seeing the police, he quickened his pace. Acting upon suspicion they stopped him and searched him. There was in one hand a cigarette packet and a match-box. The constable took the articles and examined them. Inside the match-box there was a small packet. He handed these to Inspector Weaver and thereupon the Appellant struck the Inspector's hand, knocking the packet out of it. At the same time the Appellant pushed the constable and started to run. There was then what, I hope not improperly, I described as a "rough and tumble", in the course of which both officers fell down; but it is fair to say that the Appellant made no direct attempt to strike either officers other than to the extent which I have already mentioned, namely knocking the packet out of the Inspector's hand. The small packet was found to contain dangerous drugs. 3. The Appellant was not a first offender: he had seven previous convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and a number of others for offences of dishonesty. He had been placed on probation on one occasion, sent to a Training Centre on another occasion, bound over to be of good behaviour on a third occasion and detained in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre on another occasion. 4. Before this Court the Appellant started by suggesting that he was wrongly convicted on the first charge: he even went so far as to say that he was appealing against conviction. I questioned him at considerable length and I am well satisfied that the important procedure which ought to be followed by the prison authorities was followed with great care in the present case and I have no doubt that when the Appellant signed his Notice of Appeal he fully understood what he was signing and intended to appeal only against sentence. 5. He himself has advanced no ground upon which I could interfere with the sentences but it appeared to me that there was an error in principle in the sentences in that they were made to run concurrently. Resisting arrest by a police officer in the execution of his duty is distinct from the offence for which the arrest is made and it is not a minor offence. In my view it calls for a consecutive sentence. In the present case, as I have already said, there was no attack on the police: there was an attempt to distract their attention by knocking the packet out of the Inspector's hand and an attempt to run away. The fact that both officers fell was incidental to their efforts to recapture him. 6. In there circumstances I think that three months' imprisonment was more than the dictates of justice required. Accordingly I shall allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence on the second charge is reduced from three months' to seven days' imprisonment but it will run consecutively and not concurrently. 15th July, 1971. Representation: |