Chan Pui Yung v. The Queen
|
CACC000873/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 873 OF 1969.
----------------- Coram: Rigby, C.J. Date of Judgment: 2 February 1970 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge preferred against him of larceny from a vehicle and two further charges in that he, first being a police supervisee, failed to report a change of residence and, secondly, being a police supervisee, he failed to report to the police station as required under the terms of the Police Supervision Order as and when required to do so. 2. As regards the larceny charge, the brief facts were that he was seen on the afternoon of the 20th November by a police patrol walking in what was described as "a suspicious manner" and carrying a parcel wrapped up in a piece of newspaper. The police patrol stopped and questioned him and it was found that he was carrying a transistor radio and two white shirts. Upon further interrogation he admitted that he had just stolen the transistor radio and the two white shirts from a car parked nearby. The police took him to the car and when the owner of the car came out and came to the car he verified that the radio and the two shirts had, in fact, been stolen from his car. 3. As regards the Supervision Order, it would appear from the record of previous convictions put in that the appellant was last placed on a Police Supervision Order on the 22nd March, 1966. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment on the charge of larceny from a vehicle, and twelve months' imprisonment on each of the two charges under the Police Supervision Order, such sentences of twelve months to run concurrently with each other but consecutive upon the first sentence, making a total of two years' imprisonment. The appellant appeals against that sentence. 4. The appellant undoubtedly has a bad record of previous convictions for various offences, including a substantial number of offences of dishonesty. In September, 1967, he was convicted of larceny from a vehicle and sentenced to one month's imprisonment, and in April 1968 he was convicted of loitering at night and two charges of larceny from vehicles. Upon those charges he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on the loitering at night charge, and two weeks' imprisonment on each of the charges of larceny from a vehicle, such sentences to run consecutively. 5. In my view, even allowing for the bad past record of the offender, the sentence of twelve months' imprisonment for this particular offence is excessive, and the sentence on that charge will be reduced to six months' imprisonment. 6. Turning now to the two charges under the Police Supervision Ordinance. As I have indicated, the last Supervision Order was, in fact, made against him on the 22nd March 1966 for a period of two years. However, under the provisions of section 5(3) of the Police Supervision Ordinance, it is clear that the effective period of duration of a Police Supervision Order is suspended during the time that the person in regard to whom the Order is made may be serving a term of imprisonment imposed after the making of the Order. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has had a number of previous convictions since that time, it would seem clear from the Police Supervision Order that has now been produced before me that the Order would continue to run until some time in 1971, so that the period of police supervision was, in fact, in force at the time the appellant, in accordance with the charges brought against him, failed to report. 7. As I have said, the Magistrate gave him twelve months' imprisonment on each of these two charges, such sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively with the sentence imposed on the first charge. On the face of it, twelve months' imprisonment for a breach of this Order is undoubtedly a very severe sentence. But here again it is apparent that the appellant has on three previous occasions been convicted of precisely the same offence - failing to report under the terms of a Police Supervision Order. On the first occasion in 1965 he was sentenced to five months' imprisonment for this offence; on the second occasion in November 1967 he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and on the third occasion, in July 1968, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each of two charges, namely, failing to report his change of residence and failing to report to a police station under the terms of the Order. For those offences he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each of those charges such sentences to run consecutively, making a total of twelve months' imprisonment. 8. In imposing this sentence of twelve months' imprisonment, the learned Magistrate has said:
With those observations I entirely agree. 9. It is clear that the Supervision Orders made in the past have been persistently broken by the appellant and the sentences imposed on him have failed to teach him any lesson in this respect. In those circumstances, severe as the sentence of twelve months undoubtedly is, I am not prepared to say that it was so severe as to justify my interfering with it. The result is that the appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence on the first charge is reduced from twelve months to six months, and the sentences on the second and third charges will stand, making a total of eighteen months' imprisonment. |