Chan Sik Wun v. The Queen
|
CACC000643/1968 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 643 OF 1968 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Rigby, S.P.J., Mills-Owens & Huggins JJ. Date of Judgment: 27 November 1968 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to four charges preferred against him, one of robbery with aggravation and three of larceny from the person. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on the first charge and 9 months' imprisonment on the second, third and fourth charges, all such sentences being directed to run consecutively, making a total of 3 years' and 9 months' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against those sentences on the grounds that they are too severe. 2. The facts may be briefly stated. About 10 p.m. on the 16th of October, the Appellant was caught red-handed by a police party in the very act of robbing a courting couple who were sitting on the grass on a hillside in the vicinity of Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The Appellant was seen to produce a fruit knife from his person, point it at the man, and compel him to hand over $1.70 and the wrist watch which he had upon him. The Appellant was arrested and taken to the police station. Upon being searched at the police station he was found in possession of two pawn tickets relating to a ring and a watch. Upon interrogation the Appellant admitted that some few nights previously he had snatched a handbag from a lady in the street and had thereafter removed from the handbag the ring and watch contained therein, which he had later pawned. The following day the Appellant took the police to two different pawnshops from where the ring and watch were recovered. The lady from whom these articles had been taken had, in fact, made a report to the police shortly after the incident and, subsequent to the recovery of the ring and watch, she identified both these articles as the property stolen from her on that occasion. 3. The Appellant, of his own motion - no doubt as a result of interrogate - frankly admitted to the police that on two previous occasions, both in the month of October and on different days, he had snatched handbags from two other women as they had been walking in the street and after removing the contents from the handbags had thrown the handbags away. Indeed, he went so far as to lead the police to two different places at which the handbags were found. It is of interest to observe - as is, unfortunately, so frequently the case - that in neither of these two instances had the victims apparently thought it of sufficient interest or importance to make any report to the police. The two charges themselves make reference in each case to the fact of stealing from an unknown person. The owners of the two handbags have apparently not been traced. It is manifest that in respect of these two particular offences they would not have come to light, the police themselves would have been ignorant of their commission, and there would have been no case against the Appellant if he had not, of his own volition, freely and frankly made confession to the police. These are matters which are, quite clearly and obviously, very much in favour of the Appellant. 4. The Appellant has, indeed, a bad record, although it is significant to observe that by far the greater proportion of the convictions recorded against him are in respect of drug offences. We think that this was a case where it was not illogical for the prosecution to lay charges in respect of all four offences since the inability of the police to prove the guilt of the Appellant did not alter the fact that he committed the offences. Nevertheless where additional offences come to light for the first time solely as a result of a confession by a person already charged with another offence we think the better course and the one most likely to lend to the imposition of the appropriate sentence is to ask the accused whether he wishes the additional offences to be taken into consideration. In the present case that would have meant that charges would have been laid in respect of the first two charges only and the third and fourth charges might have been taken into consideration. In our opinion the total term of imprisonment imposed by the learned judge indicates that he cannot have given sufficient weight to the confession of the appellant. We see no reason to interfere with the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment on the first charge and that will stand. We increase the sentence on the second charge from 9 months' to 12 months' imprisonment, to run consecutively with the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment on the first charge as ordered by the learned judge. The sentences of 9 months' imprisonment on the third and fourth charges will, however, run concurrently with, instead of consecutively upon, the sentences on the first and second charges. The result will be that the Appellant will serve a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment. Representation: Appellant in person. Duckett, C.C. for Respt. |