Li Tung Hing v. The Queen
|
CACC000734/1973 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 734 OF 1973 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins & McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 12th December 1973. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.: 1. The Appellant was charged before the District Court on five charges of robbery. At the hearing the Crown did not proceed on the 4th charge although there was a confession statement by the Appellant: it was not proceeded with because the victim could not be traced. The Appellant pleaded Guilty to the other four charges and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment on three of the charges and six months' imprisonment on the 5th charge, all the sentences to run consecutively. 2. This case came before the court previously on 22nd November when my Lord the Chief Justice was presiding. At that hearing neither side was heard and the court merely directed that a report be obtained from the Commissioner of Prisons regarding the Appellant's suitability for treatment in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. In those circumstances it is proper for us to deal with this case in the absence of the Chief Justice. 3. The Appellant was arrested at about 11 o'clock at night. He was seen by a police patrol acting in a furtive manner and when he was searched there was found upon him certain property which he admitted he had stolen in a robbery, together with a knife. Shortly before that he had robbed a woman in a lift, threatening her with the knife and taking property from her handbag. Thereafter the Appellant admitted four other offences of a like nature, one of them being that in respect of which the charge which has been withdrawn was laid. 4. There was, before the learned judge, a probation officer's report which suggested that the cause of the Appellant's criminal activities was his drug addiction. It was for that reason that a further report was asked for by this court. I should have mentioned that the Appellant has a previous conviction for affray for which he was fined $600 - that was a charge which is different in nature from the present although it does involve a certain measure of violence. 5. I confess that when the case first came before the court I myself had doubts whether it was right to interfere. The learned judge supplied his Reasons for Sentence but they do not really assist us at all for they do no more than indicate that in his opinion these were proper sentences. However, one may assume that he considered the possibility of detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre since that was mentioned in the probation officer's report and he must have come to the conclusion that the protection of the public required that the Appellant be sent to prison as a deterrent. We can sympathise with that view. However, after anxious consideration we have come to the conclusion that we would be justified in the present case in quashing the sentences of imprisonment and ordering the Appellant's detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. We so order. 12th December 1973. Representation: |