Wong Ming v. The Queen
|
CACC000099/1970 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 1970 -----------------
Coram: Rigby, C.J. Date of Judgment: 3 April 1970 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of attempted shop breaking and possession of housebreaking implements, and he asked for a further charge of office breaking and larceny to be taken into consideration. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on the charge of attempted shop breaking and two years' imprisonment on the charge of possession of housebreaking implements, such sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals against that sentence. 2. The appellant is aged 36, single, and was unemployed at the time. He was seen in the street by police officers on patrol in the early hours of the morning behaving in what the police officers considered to be a suspicious manner. They followed him and finally found him tampering with the lock of a shop door. He was arrested and found in his possession were a jemmy, a knife, a pair of leather gloves, and a small torch. The padlock of the shop has in fact been broken. 3. The appellant further asked for a charge of office breaking and larceny to be taken into consideration. In that case, a sum of $5,300 had been stolen from a restaurant; from the drawer of a desk in the office of the restaurant. The following morning the watchman noticed that the office door had been forced open. He reported the matter to the police, and the money was found then to be missing. 4. As regards the sentences imposed: in my view the sentence of six month's imprisonment on the charge of attempted shop breaking and the sentence of two years' imprisonment on the charge of possession of housebreaking implements as regards the latter sentence - is really wrong in principle. It would seem quite clear that the charge of possession of housebreaking implements is really part and parcel of the offence of attempted shop breaking. In the case of R. v. McGould(1) - which, indeed, is very similar upon the facts - the prisoner was charged with possession of housebreaking implements and attempted housebreaking. He was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on each charge, such sentences to run consecutively. He appealed against the sentences. Upon appeal Lord Parker, L.C.J. said that, the charges being based on the same facts in the same case, it was wrong in principle to pass consecutive sentences. 5. The appellant has a deplorable record in this case. He has been convicted of shop breaking, larceny, burglary, housebreaking, and he was last convicted in May, 1968, for possession of housebreaking implements and loitering at night, and sentenced to a total of two years' imprisonment. 6. The sentences in this case will be varied to the extent that the appellant will be sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the first charge of attempted shop breaking and six months' imprisonment on the second charge of possession of housebreaking implements, the sentences to run concurrently. Representation: Appellant in person. Penlington, S.C.C. for Crown/Respondent. (1) 109 S.J. 573. |