Yeung Cheung @ Yeung Chung and Another v. The Queen
|
CACC000722/1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 1974 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 27th September 1974. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. These two Appellants were charged with theft. The first Appellant was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment and the second to nine months' imprisonment. In addition the first Appellant was charged with contempt of court and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, consecutive. 2. I will deal first with the theft. The Appellants were seen pushing a wooden cart with some bamboo baskets containing scrap metal. They came out from a construction site from which the scrap metal had been stolen. I am told (and this does not appear on the record) that the scrap was valued at about $500. 3. The first Appellant unfortunately has a number of previous convictions, which include three of dishonesty and another of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony. The second Appellant also has a number of previous convictions. Apart from one very minor conviction most of the others related to dangerous drugs offences. However, he has been twice convicted of theft already this year. The first Appellant is 37 years of age and the second Appellant 60. The learned magistrate appeared to regard the first Appellant as the more blame-worthy because he deduced from a comparison of these records that the first Appellant had probably influenced the second Appellant. The learned magistrate appreciated that there was a big difference between the sentences he imposed, but this was deliberate. 4. I think there was justification for differentiating. The second Appellant is an old man and has (just) fewer conviction for dishonesty, but I incline to the view that the sentences are heavier than the interests of the public demand. I bear in mind that the learned magistrate has correctly said that these construction site thefts are widespread and troublesome. Even so, I think that for a theft of $500 worth of scrap a sentence of nine months' on the first Appellant and six months' on the second is sufficient. 5. I come then to the matter of the contempt of court. This causes me some anxiety. It is unfortunately not unknown that a convicted prisoner disapproves of a sentence passed upon him and that in the heat of the moment he abuses the court. I agree with the observation of the learned magistrate that this sort of thing is usually best ignored entirely. For reasons which seemed good to him the magistrate thought that on this occasion he could not entirely ignore the matter. I am not disposed to say that he was wrong in taking that view. Nevertheless, despite the fact that even today the Appellant seems to show little remorse, I think that a sentence of one month's imprisonment was unnecessarily severe. The adverse effect of this particular contempt must have been very small and had the Appellant taken a different view of the matter perhaps I could have taken a different view. As it is, I think some mark of disapproval must inevitably be made, but justice will be done if the sentence is reduced from one of one month's to one week's imprisonment. 6. The appeals are allowed accordingly. 27th September 1974. Representation: |