Chan Hung v. The Queen
|
CACC000759/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 759 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 24th November, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal against sentence. Just after midnight the Appellant was seen by police officers while he was looking into cars parked at the road side. He tried the door handles of various cars and then eventually was seen to take something out of his pocket and insert it into the door handle of a car. The police were satisfied that he was trying to steal from these parked cars and he was arrested. He was charged on two charges, one of loitering at night and one of possession of an instrument fit for an unlawful purpose. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment on each charge consecutive. 2. The Appellant has an appalling record, having been before the court on no less than 25 previous occasions and served repeated terms of imprisonment varying from one day to three years. He has twice been bound ever to be of good behaviour and he on each occasion has been in breach of his bond. Nevertheless, when the case was first brought before me I considered whether this was not one of those cases where, by a show of leniency on this occasion, the Appellant might not finally be persuaded to try a life of honesty, because I felt that if he went back to prison, which he has so recently left, he would spend most of the rest of his life in and out of prison. There was absolutely nothing that the Appellant said which led me to think that leniency was appropriate and I have now had the benefit not only of a written report but also of an interview with the Probation Officer. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is not a case where leniency will be of any use whatever. 3. Only one other point remains. As I have said, the sentences were ordered to be consecutive. The possession of the piece of wire with which he was trying to open the door of a car was part of the evidence which would have been led on the charge of loitering had the Appellant not pleaded guilty. In my view these two offences were so bound up together that the proper course is that the sentences should run concurrently. 4. The appeal is allowed to the extent only that the sentences shall run concurrently. 24th November, 1972. Representation: |