Leung Pui-tak v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 268/1979 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 January 1980.
1. The appellant in this case was at the time of the commission of the offence a young man of 19. It is true that he had had already two years' experience in the Police Force including a period in the Police Training School but it comes as somewhat of a shock to realise that at the age of 18 a man can be sent out alone on beat duty on the roads of Hong Kong inevitably to be subjected to considerable provocation, armed with a gun. In this case the appellant was subjected to very great provocation
|
CACC000268/1979
----------------- Coram: McMullin, J.A., Leonard & Li, JJ. Date of Judgment: 29 January 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Leonard, J.: 1. The appellant in this case was at the time of the commission of the offence a young man of 19. It is true that he had had already two years' experience in the Police Force including a period in the Police Training School but it comes as somewhat of a shock to realise that at the age of 18 a man can be sent out alone on beat duty on the roads of Hong Kong inevitably to be subjected to considerable provocation, armed with a gun. In this case the appellant was subjected to very great provocation indeed, that provocation and earlier provocation which he suffered at the hands of the hawker who persistently ignored his proper instructions for over a period of one hour was such as to place him under a very considerable strain. His behaviour up to the time he actually drew his gun could scarcely be criticised. We have come to the conclusion that the sentence is excessive and consider that justice may be met by a sentence of fifteen months. We take into consideration in making this reduction the lengthy period of time during which this matter has been hanging over his head. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is allowed and the sentence is reduced to one of fifteen months' imprisonment. Representation: Anthony. J. Corrigan (Hampton, Winter & Glynn) for appellant. Mr. Daw, Counsel for the Crown/respondent. |