NG WAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

CACC000345/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 345 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
	NG WAI KEUNG
	CHAN YUK CHUEN	Appellants
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. In this case the first Appellant appeals against conviction and the second Appellant appeals against sentence. They were both charged with robbery and pleaded Not guilty.

2. The evidence was that a boy of 15 years of age was walking along Inverness Road when two men came from behind. One grabbed his neck and one stood in front of him. He identified the second Appellant as the one who grabbed his neck and the first Appellant as the one who stood in front of him and he says that the first Appellant said "Don't move". The second Appellant took off his (the victim's) wrist watch and, as he did so, the first Appellant again said "Don't move". The victim began to struggle and both Appellants ran away. At that moment two plain clothes detectives ran up and arrested him. The detectives spoke to the victim and, in the presence of the second Appellant, the witness pointed at the second Appellant and said: "This man snatched my watch". This evidence was corroborated by both of the police constables.

3. Neither of the Appellants elected to give any evidence at all. The first Appellant before me denied that he had any connection with this robbery and says - which he did not say in the court below - that he was arrested while he was smoking heroin, but that the police for some reason unknown charged him with robbery.

4. There was ample evidence upon which the first Appellant could be convicted and I have no doubt that he was correctly convicted.

5. The second Appellant was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment for this offence. He is 21 years of age and has been before the court on seven previous occasions. He has once been placed on probation: then the record is not entirely clear but I think the interpretation must be that he was placed on probation for one year on two separate occasions and that, although he was twice "bound over", at the time of the present offence he was in fact on a recognizance of conditional discharge under s.36 of the Magistrates Ordinance. Once he was sentenced to detention in the Castle Peak Boys' Home. In my view fifteen months' imprisonment was a proper sentence for the present offence.

6. This Appellant is, as I understand it, also appealing against the sentence which was thereupon imposed in respect of the offence for which he had been conditionally discharged. As I have said before, I think strictly there ought to have been a separate Notice of Appeal against that sentence but no point has been taken as to this. The previous offence was one of possession of an offensive weapon. The Appellant was found in a tea house with three other youths and there were found on the Accused a bicycle chain and a triangular file. In respect of that offence the learned Magistrate now passed a sentence of three months' imprisonment and naturally ordered that the sentence run consecutively. In my view that also was a proper sentence and the appeal is dismissed.

 

15th July, 1971.

 

Representation: