Tsang Mai-hing v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 1027/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The appellant was charged with two offences, one, with being in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to the Public Order Ordinance and, two, with robbery. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the first offence and twelve months' imprisonment for the second offence, the sentences to be served concurrently. At the same time, the magistrate reactivated a sentence of three months' imprisonment which was passed on the appellant by another magistrate in April of
|
CACC001027/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 1975 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J. Date of Judgment: 13th December, 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was charged with two offences, one, with being in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to the Public Order Ordinance and, two, with robbery. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the first offence and twelve months' imprisonment for the second offence, the sentences to be served concurrently. At the same time, the magistrate reactivated a sentence of three months' imprisonment which was passed on the appellant by another magistrate in April of this year, which was suspended for a period of two years. The magistrate in the present case ordered that sentence of three months to be reactivated and to be served consecutively to the sentence of twelve months passed on the appellant on the robbery charge. The appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence. I dismissed the appeal against conviction. 2. There were no grounds for interfering with the sentence of the appellant on the two charges which formed the subject matter of the present case. However, the reactivated suspended sentence of three months must be quashed. Possession of an offensive weapon, contrary to the Public Order Ordinance is an "excepted" offence and such a sentence cannot be suspended. Also, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of six months for that offence. The magistrate, therefore, who passed the sentence of three months for that offence in April and suspended it for two years was wholly wrong. 3. In the circumstances, there is no alternative but to quash the three months sentence reactivated by the magistrate in the present case and therefore the nett result is that the appellant will serve a total of twelve months' imprisonment and not fifteen months' imprisonment.
Representation: Miss Kam, C.C., for Crown. |