Case Document

100%

CACC000576/1977

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1977 No.576

BETWEEN:
	LIN Wing-wo LEUNG Ting-kit	Appellants
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 18th June, 1977.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellants were originally charged with six offences of blackmail and seven charges of theft and the particulars of the offences were that between the 4th and 18th March, 1977, they made demands from one LAM Ping-kwan with menaces and were given various sums of money by Mr. Lam in satisfaction of those unwarranted demands. At the close of the case for the prosecution the magistrate amended the charges. He substituted two charges as follows:-

	(1)	"	..... that on divers dates between the 4th March, 1977 and the 8th March, 1977 you made an unwarranted demand from LAM Ping-kwan with menaces.",
	(2)	"	..... that on divers dates between 4th March, 1977 and the 8th March, 1977 you did steal divers sums of money totalling $21.60,"

2. The appellants were found guilty of those two charges. The appellants were each sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on each of those charges, the sentences to be concurrent.

3. The appellants were unrepresented in the Magistrates Court and also before me. They both appeal against their conviction and, in addition, the first appellant appeals against his sentence.

4. It was conceded by the Crown that the second substituted charge, the charge which deals with theft is bad for duplicity. One has only to read the charge to see that this is so and I quash the conviction and set aside the sentence on that charge. It could be argued that the first substituted charge, the charge which is concerned with blackmail, is bad for duplicity but the appellants cannot be said to have been prejudiced by the words in the charge as it now stands. They had full particulars of what was alleged against them in the original charge sheet which, as I have said, contained thirteen separate charges, each one setting out the occasion of the demand and the theft of the amount involved.

5. Acting on the authority of R. v. Thompson ⁽¹⁾ I reach the conclusion that as there had been no prejudice to the appellants in this case it is a valid point that they could not succeed in this appeal on the ground that this charge was bad for duplicity. In the event I dismiss the appeal on that charge.

6. As to the sentence, I consider that eighteen months is a proper sentence, in the circumstances of this case, and the appeal against sentence of the first appellant is dismissed.