MOK WING LUK v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000287/1971
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 287 OF 1971
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| MOK WING LUK | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 4th June, 1971.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The Appellant appeals against a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment imposed upon his conviction on a charge of Going Equipped for Stealing. This is one of those cases which formerly would have been brought under the Summary Offences Ordinance, the charge then being loitering with intent.
2. The Appellant was seen by the police moving among stationary cars and finally using a piece of wire in an attempt to force open the window of a car. The Appellant pleaded guilty and asked for another offence to be taken into consideration. Not having any other sufficient evidence of that offence the police did not lay a charge, in spite of his confession. This offence, however, was more serious than the one with which he was charged, for it involved the theft of a radio from a parked motor car. The Appellant broke into that motor car in the same way as he was attempting to break into the other when he was arrested.
3. In view of the history of this type of charge the learned Chief Justice has in a number of recent cases reduced sentences of 9 months' imprisonment to ones of 6 months' imprisonment and it is desirable that there should be uniformity of sentencing. The question therefore arises whether there is in the present case any distinguishing factor. The offence taken into consideration, although sufficiently similar to allow of its being taken into consideration, was more serious than that with which the Appellant was charged and it is important a sentence should not in effect be imposed for the more serious offence rather than the offence actually charged: the sentence was being imposed basically for the offence of going equipped for stealing. The Appellant has a bad record but so I understand had some of those appellants in the cases to which I was referring and on balance I think that no distinction ought to be drawn. For that reason the sentence is set aside and a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment is substituted.
4th June, 1971.
Representation: