Hui Chi-chung v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 133/1976 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences, one of being a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence and, two, of going equipped for stealing. The magistrate imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment on the first charge and three months' imprisonment on the second charge, the sentences to run concurrently. This was a slip on the magistrate's part because the maximum penalty for the first charge is a term of imprisonment of three months. The magistrate obvi
|
CACC000133/1976 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 133 OF 1976 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J. Date of Judgment: 12th February, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences, one of being a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence and, two, of going equipped for stealing. The magistrate imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment on the first charge and three months' imprisonment on the second charge, the sentences to run concurrently. This was a slip on the magistrate's part because the maximum penalty for the first charge is a term of imprisonment of three months. The magistrate obviously intended that a sentence of nine months should be imposed for these two offences and I think that justice would best be served if the sentence in the court below is corrected so that on the first change, the appellant is sentenced to three months' imprisonment and on the second charge he is sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. The sentences to run concurrently. This will correct the unfortunate mistake.
Representation: Appellant in person. Whetter for crown. |