LI KWOK LEUNG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000256/1972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 1972
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LI KWOK LEUNG | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Rigby, C.J.
Date of Judgment: 4th May, 1972.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The appellant is 34 years of age. He pleaded guilty to two charges preferred against him of being a suspected person found loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence, namely, to steal, and a charge of going equipped for stealing in that he was found in possession of an article for use in the course of, or in connection with, theft, namely, a screw driver.
2. The simple facts of the case were that the appellant was seen loitering in the vicinity of a number of parked care. He was seen to tamper with the doors or windows of several of these cars. When the police finally approached him he was found to be in possession of a screw driver. It was abundantly clear that he was in possession of that screw driver for the purpose of assisting him to commit an arrestable offence, namely, to open the doors of the parked cars and steal from them. The maximum sentence for the first offence of being a suspected person found loitering with intent to steal is three months' imprisonment. The maximum sentence for going equipped for stealing is three years' imprisonment. The magistrate imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment on the first charge of being a suspected person found loitering with intent to steal, and six months' imprisonment on the charge of going equipped for stealing, namely, having a screw driver in his possession in order to facilitate the purpose of the offence. He ordered that these sentences were to run consecutively.
3. This Court has said on many occasions that these offences should really be considered as one and the same offence. The object of the screw driver was in order to facilitate and give effect to the intent to steal. There can be no justification for the sentences being ordered to run consecutively. The appeal will therefore be allowed to the extent that the sentences will run concurrently instead of consecutively.
Representation: