Ng Siu Sun v. The Queen
|
CACC000784/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 784 OF 1969
Coram: Rigby, S.P.J. Date of Judgment: 20 November 1969 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was convicted upon six charges preferred against him of demanding money with menaces and simple larceny, and one charge of being a member of a Triad Society. 2. The six charges of demanding money with menaces and simple larceny refer to three separate and distinct offences. It is quite clear that those charges of demanding money with menaces and simple larceny should have been in the alternative and that convictions on both charges in respect of the same incident cannot stand. There should have been a conviction on one charge or the other but not upon both. 3. The brief facts of the case were that the appellant was arrested at an open market down by the seafront in circumstances which disclosed that he had demanded the sum of 20 cents from a street hawker at that market with the threat that unless the money was paid to him he would throw the hawker's goods into the sea. He was taken back to the police station and there, under caution, it is said that he admitted two further offences of precisely the same nature in respect of demanding the same sum of money, 20 cents, from two other hawkers on different dates. 4. It is, I repeat, clear that those were either charges of demanding money with menaces or simple larceny. They were alternative charges and pleas of guilty on both charges in respect of one offence should not have been accepted. Quite clearly, they are charges of demanding money with menaces. In those circumstances the convictions of simple larceny, which are charges B, D and F, must be quashed. 5. There is one further matter. It would appear that a statement of the facts of the case was handed up to the learned magistrate and such statement was read out in court and, according to the record, admitted by the appellant. However, contained in that statement of facts is a paragraph which, on the face of it, is highly prejudicial to the appellant. It alleges that he was in the habit of behaving in this manner and that he had in fact collected similar sums of money from other, if not all hawkers in the market under the same form of threat. I have the gravest doubt as to whether that statement was admissible at all. If there were such allegations, then they could have been made the subject of separate charges. 6. The appellant was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment on the 3 charges of demanding money with menaces, 6 months imprisonment on the 3 charges or simple larceny, all such sentences to run concurrently. Following the quashing of the convictions in respect of the charges B, D and F of simple larceny, the sentences on those charges must be set aside. 7. As regards the sentences of 15 months imprisonment on charges A, C and E, whilst I do not seek in any way to minimise the despicable nature of this type of offence, I am firmly of the opinion that the sentences of 15 months were manifestly excessive. The sentences on these 3 charges will accordingly be reduced to one of six months imprisonment on each charge, such sentences to run concurrently. 8. At the same time the appellant pleaded guilty to a further charge preferred against him of being a member of a Triad Society. In respect of that charge he was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Whilst I am again of the opinion that that sentence was a severe sentence, I do not consider that I ought to interfere with it. 9. The result will be that the appeal will be allowed to the extent that the appellant will serve a total of 12 months imprisonment. 10. There was a further order made against him of 2 years police supervision. I make no order in respect of that matter. |