SIU KAI SHING v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000089/1969
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 89 OF 1969
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| SIU KAI SHING | Appellant | |
AND | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 7 March 1969
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Huggins,J:
1. I have just heard a previous appeal by this appellant and I was not then aware that he had a second appeal against sentence. However, I am satisfied that I would not have reached any different conclusion had I been aware of that fact.
2. In the present case the appellant pleaded guilty to membership of a Triad Society. He joined the 14K in August 1967, but his story is, before me, that he had no idea that he was connected with the 14K until he was arrested by the police. He never made such an allegation before the magistrate: there he merely pleaded his youth as an excuse for having joined a Triad Society. Now he says that he was threatened by somebody and that another man then came up and offered him protection. I do not believe this story. It was stated before the magistrate that there was an initiation ceremony: that was not challenged but on the contrary was admitted. I therefore consider the case on the basis that the appellant knew very well that he was joining the 14K.
3. This is not one of those cases where an appellant joined many years ago and had played no active part in the Society. He joined recently for the express purpose on his admission of obtaining protection. The fact that he was subsequently arrested for four offences of robbery is almost certainly not unconnected with his Triad Membership.
4. The learned magistrate took the view that the community needed to be protected against Triad Societies and I think it is right that we should keep constantly before us the danger posed by these Societies. In my view a sentence of four months' imprisonment in all the circumstances of this case was a proper sentence and, having regard to the proper leniency which was extended to the appellant in the other case, I see no reason to direct that the sentence in this case should run concurrently.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
7th March, 1969.
Representation:
Judgment pronounced by Huggins J. court.