LI HO AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000212/1969
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 1969
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| 1. LI HO | Appellants | |
| 2. KONG WO @ KWONG WAH | ||
| AND | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 28 April 1969
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Huggins, J:
1. The appellants were jointly charged on two charges of housebreaking, one of larceny in a dwelling and one of simple larceny. On the last three charges they were both sentenced to 12 months', 9 months' and 6 months' imprisonment respectively. On the first charge the first appellant was sentenced to 24 months and the second appellant to 20 months. They appeal against sentence. They have both come forward with reasons for reduction of sentence which were never mentioned as mitigating factors before the learned magistrate and they are matters which I do not think are material to the present appeal.
2. The only question which I have raised with counsel for the Crown is why the first appellant was sentenced more heavily on the first charge than was the second. Both appellants were violent when an attempt was made to apprehend them but, if anything, the second appellant appears to have been the more violent. The second appellant has more convictions than the first. The learned magistrate has given no indication as to why he thought it appropriate to differentiate between the two in this way. His only comment is: "I consider that the sentences imposed on the first and second appellants respectively are appropriate in all the circumstances having special regard to their bad record." If he did not think the sentences appropriate in all the circumstances I trust he would not have passed these sentences. The rules laid down in the Magistrates Ordinance require reasons for sentence and it would have been more helpful had I been told why this differentiation was made. Counsel for the Crown suggests that it is just possible the magistrate may have seen some differentiation in the previous records but I do not see anything there which really justifies the extra 4 months' imprisonment awarded to the first appellant. That being so I shall allow the appeal of the first appellant to the extent of reducing the sentence on the first charge to one of 20 months. Otherwise the appeals are dismissed.
28th April, 1969.