HKSAR v. Wang Oimin
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1027/2004 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 30 December 2004.
1. On 8 September of this year, the Appellant, Wang Oimin, was convicted on his own plea by Mr. Ian Candy, Principal Magistrate, sitting at Eastern Magistrates Court, of an offence of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to section 33(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, and an offence of illegal remaining, contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance.
|
HCMA1027/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2004 (ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3718 of 2004) __________________ BETWEEN
______________________ Before: Hon Lugar-Mawson J in Court Date of Hearing: 30 December 2004 Date of Judgment: 30 December 2004 __________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ 1.On 8 September of this year, the Appellant, Wang Oimin, was convicted on his own plea by Mr. Ian Candy, Principal Magistrate, sitting at Eastern Magistrates Court, of an offence of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to section 33(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, and an offence of illegal remaining, contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance. 2.He was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment in respect of the possession offence and 12 months’ imprisonment in respect of the illegal remaining offence. The Magistrate ordered that he serve his sentences concurrently, making his total period of imprisonment one of 12 months. 3.He now appeals against those sentences. Quite why he is appealing I do not know, because he tells me in his notice of appeal that he came to Hong Kong from his native place in Shaanxi Province expressly to be arrested here so that he could be sent to prison and earn money while in prison. It would appear that he is not happy with the work he has been given and the pay he receives from the Correctional Services Department, because he is having to spend all of it to buy cigarettes and biscuits. 4.That being so, the brief facts of his case are these. On the evening of 21 August, the Appellant was intercepted by a police officer - he says that he surrendered himself to the police officer, but that is immaterial. When he was searched by the police officer, a fruit knife, which was 19 inches long, was found on him. The knife was wrapped in blue paper. After caution, the appellant admitted that he had sneaked into Hong Kong on the day before, 20 August, and that he carried the fruit knife in case he felt like committing a robbery with it. 5.It is well-established that the sentence for illegal remaining in Hong Kong after a plea of guilty is 15 months’ imprisonment. That was established in 1989, in the case of R v So Man King [1989] 1 HKLR 142. In the present case, for no particularly good reason, the Magistrate allowed a short reduction of 3 months on that sentence as a humanitarian gesture. 6.The maximum penalty for the offence of possession of an offensive weapon is 3 years’ imprisonment, which indicates how seriously Hong Kong’s legislature views this offence. The knife in question was, as I have said, 19 inches long and, had it been used on anybody, it could have caused serious injury. The sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment for possession of that weapon is by no means excessive. 7.Neither of the sentences imposed on the Appellant are either wrong in principle, or manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Representations: Ms Olivia Tsang, GC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant, Wang Oimin, in person |