Wong Sau-sang v. The Queen
|
CACC001090/1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1090 OF 1974 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Mr. Commissioner Yang in Court. Date of Judgment: ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The matter arose out of a dispute between the victim Mr. Cheng Kar-lok and the appellant's uncle over a game of mahjong. Two days after the dispute i.e. on 7th October 1974 the appellant approached Mr. Cheng at Kam Kok Building, Junetion Road, first floor, Kowloon with a demand of money. Mr. Cheng, fearing violence or a fire in his factory, handed over to the appellant $100 at the Highness Restaurant, Tseuk Luk Street, Kowloon. On 9th October 1974 the appellant made a similar demand from Madam Lam Lai-man at the same flat in Kam Kok Building. He emptied her purse of its contents, about $10, and took them for himself. 2. The appellant is 28 years of age and single. His occupation is said to be that of a casual worker. He has 11 previous convictions, beginning in 1960 and the last one being in 1973. Of these convictions three were of larceny from the person and five on various types of violence. He had been bound over, put on probation, caned, sent to Castle Peak Boy's Home and the Training Centre, and imprisoned for up to 2 years. 3. In the light of his record and the nature of the offences, a substantial sentence of imprisonment is obviously called for. The learned magistrate sentenced the appellant to (A) 6 months' imprisonment for the blackmail of the 7th October 1974, (B) 9 months for the theft of the same date, (C) 6 months for the blackmail of the 9th October 1974 and (D) 9 months for the theft of the same date, sentences to run consecutively. The offences of blackmail and theft which occurred on the 7th October 1974 (i.e. (A) and (B)) formed essentially one transaction, therefore as a matter of principle the sentences on these two offences should be ordered to run concurrently. Similarly as the offences of the blackmail and theft which occurred on the 9th October 1974 (i.e. (C) and (D)) formed essentially one transaction the sentences on those offences should be ordered to run concurrently also. However there is no objection to the sentences for (C) and (D) to run consecutively to the sentences for (A) and (B). The aggregate of the sentences imposed by the learned magistrate came to 30 months. The term is somewhat heavier than what I myself would have imposed, but subject to what I have observed earlier I am unable to say that the sentence is wrong. I therefore vary the sentences as follows:
the concurrent term of 15 months on (C) and (D) to be consecutive to the concurrent term of 15 months on (A) and (B), thus making a total of 30 months' imprisonment.
Representation: Appellant in person. Alderdice, C.C. for Respondent. |