Mok Man Ching v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 352/1971 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The Appellant and another man were found smoking dangerous drugs together. When first brought before the Magistrate they pleaded Not guilty. Subsequently, when they came before the court a second time, they both apparently pleaded Guilty. So the record indicates, but I would emphasise again that where a person pleads Guilty s.19 of the Magistrates Ordinance requires that the admission be recorded not merely by a statement that he pleaded Guilty but in as nearly as possible in the words used b
|
CACC000352/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 1971 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant and another man were found smoking dangerous drugs together. When first brought before the Magistrate they pleaded Not guilty. Subsequently, when they came before the court a second time, they both apparently pleaded Guilty. So the record indicates, but I would emphasise again that where a person pleads Guilty s.19 of the Magistrates Ordinance requires that the admission be recorded not merely by a statement that he pleaded Guilty but in as nearly as possible in the words used by the defendant. This is particularly important where there is a change of plea. 2. The Appellant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and his co-defendant to 6 months' imprisonment. This distinction has apparently left the Appellant with a sense of grievance. The question is whether it is a justifiable sense of grievance. 3. The Appellant has been before the court on 29 previous occasions, on several of those occasions for more than three offences. On twelve occasions he was charged with offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He is 45 years' of age and younger than the other man, who did not have, so the Magistrate says, as bad a record. 4. I am not concerned with the sentence imposed on the co-defendant: what I am concerned with is whether the sentence on the Appellant can be justified and the more fact that the other man was treated with undue leniency, if such be the case, is not material. This Appellant has been in prison for short periods on many occasions and those sentences appear to have had little effect. The sentence was a severe one but it was intended to be severe. I am unable to say that it was wrong in principle. The appeal is dismissed. 15th July, 1971. Representation: |