Choi Tin Kwai v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 10/1970 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 January 1970.
1. The appellant was charged with loitering and being unable to give a satisfactory account of himself and was sentenced to two and a half months' imprisonment. Notice of appeal against the sentence was given on the 9th December. It is unfortunate that the case has not come on for hearing until to-day because the appellant has already completed his sentence. It is to be hoped that in future care will be taken to ensure that where there is an appeal against a short sentence every effort will be m
|
CACC000010/1970 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1970 -----------------
Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 22 January 1970 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was charged with loitering and being unable to give a satisfactory account of himself and was sentenced to two and a half months' imprisonment. Notice of appeal against the sentence was given on the 9th December. It is unfortunate that the case has not come on for hearing until to-day because the appellant has already completed his sentence. It is to be hoped that in future care will be taken to ensure that where there is an appeal against a short sentence every effort will be made to see that it comes on for hearing before it is too late to assist the appellant to obtain what he thinks justice requires. It should not detract from what I have just said that in the present case I think no harm has been done. 2. The appellant upon his first appearance before the learned magistrate pleaded guilty. It was alleged by the prosecution that at 4.10 a.m. police officers on patrol had seen the appellant walking to and fro along a road and looking in at windows of the houses. After some 15 minutes he entered the courtyard of a house and took off his shoes. He then jumped on to a wall and reached towards a window of a house. At this point the police approached him. On becoming aware of their presence the appellant jumped down, picked up his shoes and ran away. The police gave chase and arrested him. 3. When these facts were stated in court the appellant disputed that he was in the courtyard. The learned magistrate very properly entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to hear evidence. The evidence coincided with the statement which had already been given in court. The case was part-heard on that day. At the adjourned hearing the appellant again changed his plea and he admitted the facts as stated by the prosecution witness. 4. Before me the appellant has in effect again sought to change his plea but I am quite satisfied that he knew very well what he was admitting when he pleaded guilty before the magistrate. This is an appeal against sentence and I am not disposed to treat it as an appeal against conviction. 5. The appellant has a shocking record, having been before the courts on no less than 23 previous occasions. The previous convictions included offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and offences of dishonesty. In my view the sentence passed upon him was a very proper sentence and the appeal is dismissed. 22nd January, 1970. |