Yeung Chi-lung v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 1139/1975
Court
Court of Appeal
Date09 Jan 1976
Judge
Case Document
100%

CACC001139/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1139 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN:    
  YEUNG Chi-lung Appellant
  and  
  THE QUEEN Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 9th January, 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was found guilty of being in possession of an offensive weapon contrary to section 17(1) of the Summary Offences Ordinance and he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

2. The facts of the case were simple. On October 9th, 1975, two detective constables were patrolling the Tung Tau Resettlement Estate in plain clothes and they saw the appellant holding something wrapped in a newspaper. They approached him in order to search him as they were suspicious of his actions. He dropped the parcel he was carrying on the ground, which was found to contain an ice pick. The detective constables therefore arrested him and took him to the police station. At no time did the appellant explain why he had an ice pick in his possession. The defence of the appellant was that the police had framed him and had planted the ice pick on his person.

3. The appellant, who appeared in person before me, gave no reasons for appealing against his conviction and I dismissed that appeal. However, I granted the appellant leave to appeal against sentence out of time.

4. The sentence, as I have said, was two years' imprisonment which is the maximum under this section. It is true that the appellant, who is aged 26, had seven previous convictions, the last of which was for a similar offence which occurred in May 1974. However, there was nothing unusual in the circumstances of the present case and I think that a sentence of two years for this offence was manifestly excessive. In the event, I have substituted a sentence of one year's imprisonment for the sentence passed in the court below, so the appeal against sentence is allowed to that extent.

  (Geoffrey Briggs)
  Chief Justice.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Gall for crown.