HO KWAN SHING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000810/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 810 OF 1969

-----------------

BETWEEN
	HO KWAN SHING	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Rigby, S.P.J.

Date of Judgment: 20 November 1969

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge preferred against him of being a suspected person found loitering. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment and he now appeals against that sentence.

2. The facts of the case were, unhappily, the facts which so often come before this court on charges of this nature. The appellant was seen loitering at one bus-stop and then another bus-stop, and according to the evidence of two police officers who observed him, he was seen at both bus-stops to give the appearance of entering buses that stopped there and mingling with the passengers who were about to board the bus, and indeed at both bus-stops, he was seen, according to the evidence, to touch the hip pockets of intending passengers and then make no attempt to board the bus before it left.

3. The appellant before me has said that he wishes to limit his appeal only to the Police Supervision Order made. It is quite clear that in fact no Police Supervision Order was made. His record of previous convictions is before me, and it is sufficient for me to say that I can see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the sentence imposed upon him. However, I think it is perhaps desirable to draw attention to the police Record of Previous Conviction because it shows that the last Order for Police Supervision made against him was on the 10th of June, 1965; yet it would seem apparent from the record that on the 30th April, 1969, he was convicted on three different charges; one charge of being a police supervisee failing to report his change of address and two other charges for offences in connection with police supervisees. There is, however, no entry upon that record to show that any Police Supervision Order was made against him at any time subsequent to the 10th of June, 1965. I draw attention to this matter simply because it seems to me desirable that the matter should in turn be reported to the Hong Kong Police Record Bureau, so that the matter may be looked into. I hope that this will be done.

4. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Evans, C.C. for Crown/Respondent.