HKSAR v. Lau Ngam Chung

HCMA000692/2004

HCMA 692/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 692 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 587/2004)

____________

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court

Date of Hearing: 27 August 2004

Date of Judgment: 27 August 2004

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.This is an appeal against sentence.

2.The Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a prohibited weapon and a charge of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong. He was represented. He agreed the prosecution summary of facts which stated that he had been intercepted by a patrolling police officer who had then conducted a search of his person, during the course of which a spring operated folding knife was located. The knife is what is known colloquially as a flick knife: it was some 15cm in length with a blade of some 7cm.

3.The Magistrate took 12 months as the starting point for the weapons offence and reduced it by one third for the plea. A starting point of at least that order was appropriate. The tariff sentence of 15 months after a plea was rightly taken for the immigration offence. The Magistrate considered the issue of totality and ordered that 10 months of the immigration offence be served consecutively to the weapons offence resulting in an overall sentence of 18 months imprisonment. That was a generous approach.

4.A review of the sentence by the Appellant was dismissed. During those proceedings and again in these the Appellant claims that he had surrendered himself to the police. The Magistrate rejected this attempt to modify his earlier unequivocal admissions, as do I.

5.In any event, that would affect neither the issue of possession of the knife which the Appellant still accepts he had in his pocket, nor the sentence. There is nothing in the charge which alleges that the knife was possessed for any purpose: because of the very nature of the flick knife, mere possession is the offence.

6.The appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Vincent Wong, GC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant, in person