Wong Ming Chau v. The Queen

CACC000502/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

-----------------

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 502 OF 1968

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Morley-John J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 1 October 1968

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant faced two charges (A) possession of opium pipes which intended for the smoking of opium and (B) with possession of less than 1 mace of prepared opium and less than 1 mace of opium dross.

2. To these charges the appellant pleaded guilty.

3. The facts in this case are that the Police raided a cockloft at 115, Temple Street, on the 15th of August 1968 and during the raid the appellant was found to be in possession of the 2 pipes and the opium. Those are the only facts appearing on the record and it is recorded that the appellant admitted that they were correct.

4. The learned magistrate sentenced the appellant to three months imprisonment on charge A and six months imprisonment on charge B and ordered that these sentences of imprisonment should be consecutive. The appellant has appealed against these sentences on the grounds that they were too severe. The appellant merely asked for a reduction of his sentence because he said he had a wife and 2 children to support; that he was a tailor and that, as it was getting near Chinese New Year, his business would be improving.

5. I found no merit in these grounds of appeal. However, I did notice that the learned magistrate ordered that the teams of imprisonment should be consecutive. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that a more comprehensive statement of the facts does not appear in the record but Mr. Duckett for the Crown did agree with me that these two offences did appear to arise from one and the same act of possession. There is good authority for the proposition that two consecutive sentences should not be passed for two offences which arise from one and the same act. In the case of R. v. Hussain⁽¹⁾, the appellant arrived at London Airport from Karachi in possession of three tins containing Indian hemp which he tried to take through the Customs without a licence. The Court of Appeal ordered that as both offences (unloading prohibited goods from an aircraft and possessing a dangerous drug without a licence) arose out of the same transaction, generally the appropriate way was to make whatever sentences were given concurrent. In that case the Court ordered that the appellant had committed a serious offence and therefore to deter others, the sentences of two and three years imprisonment consecutive were to be varied to two five years concurrent. In this case, I am satisfied that a proper sentence would be an aggregate of six months imprisonment on both charges and I therefore allow this appeal to the extent that the sentences on charges A and B are to run concurrently instead of consecutively.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Respondent by Duckett CC.

(1) (1962) Crim. L.R.712.