LAM MING v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000693/1968
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 693 of 1968
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LAM MING | Appellant | |
| AND | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 12 December 1968
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Huggins, J:
1. The appellant was charged before the magistrate on four charges, two of robbery with aggravation and two of larceny from the person.
2. Once again the record placed before me is not complete. However, I am told that the appellant pleaded guilty to the third charge when he came before the magistrate on 13th September and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. At that time he pleaded not guilty to the present three charges and the case was adjourned for trial. When the appellant came before the court on 1st November he appears to have changed his plea to one of guilty on all the three charges.
3. The appellant was arrested upon information received and property suspected to have been stolen was found on him. He then admitted the offences alleged against him. It appears that some of the offences had not been reported to the police and the owner of part of the property cannot be found. The appellant was convicted in 1965 of offences of demanding money with menaces and of larceny and was placed on probation for eighteen months. Only six months later he was convicted again and on that occasion he was sent to the Training Centre. He has therefore been given every opportunity to reform. He comes before me saying that he committed these offences because he was short of money. It appears that some of the property stolen could not be recovered because the appellant lost it in street gambling. His present plea, therefore, carries little weight.
4. The sentences imposed were seven months imprisonment on each of the robbery charges and three months' for the second larceny from the person. All the sentences were to run consecutively and therefore the total amounts to 23 months. In all the circumstances I do not think that that was improper.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
12th December, 1968.
Representation:
Appellant in person
Mr. Evans for the Respondent