Ma Hok Lak v. The Queen
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 1973 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. ----------------------------- JUDGMENT ----------------------------- 1. The Appellant was charged on two charges before the magistrate, possession of an offensive weapon in a public place and unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. He pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on the first charge and two months’ imprisonment concurrent on the second charge. He appeals only against the sentence imposed for the possession of an offensive weapon. The maximum sentence which the learned magistrate could pass was one of three years’ imprisonment. 2. I am told that the weapon in question was a fruit knife. It was concealed in the Appellant’s sock. He tells me that he was merely taking it to the owner’s home, where he himself lived, as a service to the owner. When I pointed out that he had told the learned magistrate that he had it “for fighting” he said that he told the magistrate that it was “for self-defence”. Even that was not consistent with the story which he told me. 3. The Appellant has no less than seven previous convictions for robbery with aggravation, one for wounding and one for possession of an offensive weapon, apart from other convictions for larceny and for dangerous drugs offences. The learned magistrate called for a report from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and the Commissioner of Prisons indicated that he was not prepared to accept the Appellant for treatment. The Commissioner’s report indicated that he was attaching a background report from the after-care officer. That document does not appear in the record which has been submitted to this court nor does it appear in the original record of the magistrate’s court. Nevertheless, I have made enquiries and I am told that the document was seen by the magistrate and a copy has now been supplied to me. It does not, however, indicate anything of significance which does not appear on the record. 4. This sentence was a heavy one. It was heavier than I myself would have imposed. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances I cannot say that it is manifestly excessive and the appeal must be dismissed. 3rd April, 1973 |