Wu Wing Kin v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 360/1976 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. There were two charges of inducing a person to become a member of an unlawful society - but they related to two invitations made within a short space of time to the same person - and one charge of claiming to be a member of a triad society. The learned magistrate imposed sentences of one year's imprisonment on each of the inducement offences and two years on the membership of a triad society. Those sentences were ordered to run so that a tota
|
CACC000360/1976
-----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J.A. Date of Judgment: 28th April 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. There were two charges of inducing a person to become a member of an unlawful society - but they related to two invitations made within a short space of time to the same person - and one charge of claiming to be a member of a triad society. The learned magistrate imposed sentences of one year's imprisonment on each of the inducement offences and two years on the membership of a triad society. Those sentences were ordered to run so that a total of three years' imprisonment was imposed. I would certainly not dissent from the learned magistrate's view that it is a very serious matter when young boys are persuaded to join a triad society. Indeed, in my view - and I hope this will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General - the maximum sentence which is available under s.22 of the Societies Ordinance is quite inadequate. Having imposed those sentences the learned magistrate had second thoughts and he has indicated that he would, if he had been able to, have altered his sentences so as to impose two years' imprisonment for the second of the inducements offences. I think that in so saying he overlooked the fact that the maximum imposed by the statute did not enable him to do so. 2. As to the conviction I see no reason whatever to interfere: there was clear evidence which, if it was believed, justified a conviction on each of the three charges. Whether it was necessary to bring two separate charges in respect of the two invitations is neither here nor there: the magistrate was satisfied that concurrent sentences were justified. However, I do think that, even bearing in mind the need to protect this young boy and any others like him, a total of three years' imprisonment for this offence was too heavy. The Police Supervision Order - with which I will not interfere - was in itself a form of protection and I think that a total of two years' imprisonment was the most that could be supported. The Appellant did have previous convictions including two for roobery and one for affray. Taking that record into consideration I think that two years' sentence was a proper one and the proper order is to reduce the sentence on the second charge to one of one year's imprisonment. Otherwise the orders will stand. 28th April 1976. Representation: |