Attorney General v. Shek Wah

CAAR000012/1973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 12 OF 1973

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

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

Coram: Pickering and Cons, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 13th June, 1973.

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

DECISION

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

Pickering, J.:

1. This is an application by the Attorney General for the review of a sentence of three months imprisonment, imposed concurrently with other sentences, by the learned magistrate upon a charge of escape from legal custody, contrary to s.17(a) of the Prisons Ordinance, Cap. 234.

2. The respondent was observed by police officers tampering with the doors and ventilation windows of private cars. He was approached by the officers and searched and an iron hook was found tucked in his waist belt whilst a brand new shirt was found inside a shopping bag which he carried. The respondent subsequently admitted having stolen the shirt from the rear seat of a private car. He was charged with: (a) being a suspected person found loitering; (b) being in possession of an instrument fit for an unlawful purpose; (c) theft of a shirt; and, (it having been established that he was a wanted person who had escaped from the detention ward of Ruttonjee Sanatorium on the 3rd May) (d) with escape from legal custody.

3. To these four offences the respondent pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to two months imprisonment on the (a) Charge; to two months imprisonment concurrently on the (b) Charge; to four months imprisonment, also concurrently, on the (c) Charge; and to three months imprisonment concurrently on the (d) Charge.

4. The application of the Attorney General is made on the ground that the escape from legal custody, being independent of and separate from the other three charges, the sentence of three months imprisonment imposed therefor should not have been expressed to be concurrent with the sentences attracted by the three other offences but should have been consecutive.

5. At the hearing before us this was carefully explained to the respondent who said that he had nothing at all to say. It is unnecessary for us to say more than that we agree with the contention of the Crown and, indeed, the learned magistrate has since confirmed that in making the sentence on Charge (d) concurrent with those imposed on the other charges, he did so inadvertently. The application is allowed and the sentence of three months imprisonment imposed on the (d) Charge will be consecutive to the concurrent sentences imposed on the (a), (b) and (c) Charges.

Representation:

Sceats, C.C. for Appellant.

Respondent in person.