SO PUI-HUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000660/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 660 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
	SO Pui-hung	Appellant
	and
	The Queen	Respondent

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

Coram: Rigby, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 31st October, 1972

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant, who is 24 years of age, was stopped in the street and searched by a police officer. He was found to be in possession of a Japanese-style knife that he was carrying on his person. When asked to account for it he said that he carried it for the purpose of self-defence in the event of his being attacked. He was taken back to the police station and later charged before the learned magistrate with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.

2. On the face of it that is an extremely severe sentence. But the appellant has three previous convictions over the last four years. In 1968 he was convicted of a number of offences of robbery with aggravation and sent to a Training Centre. He would then have been between 19 and 20 years of age. In January 1970 he was convicted of being a member of a Triad Society, and was recalled to the Training Centre. In September 1970 he was convicted on three charges of robbery with aggravation and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. It is to be said in his favour that he appears to have kept out of trouble since the date of his release from prison.

3. The sentence, as I have said, is a severe one, and out of line with the normal sentences which are imposed in cases of this kind. But the learned magistrate has stressed the prevalence of crimes of violence in Hong Kong at the present time, and he has referred to the appellant's past record. It is a sentence which, in normal circumstances, I would have considered unduly severe, and would have thought it right to reduce it. But it is an unfortunates fact that at the present time crimes of violence committed by young persons are all too commonplace, and it is essential that young persons who carry offensive weapons about with them for no valid reason whatsoever should know that, if apprehended, they stand in danger of severe punishment. It is an accepted and well-recognised principle of sentencing policy that where crimes of a particular class or kind - and particularly crimes of violence involving the use of a knife - are prevalent either generally or in a particular area - then exemplary sentences may properly be imposed not only to punish the offenders but to deter others who might otherwise be minded to commit offences of a similar nature. In all the circumstances of this case, I am not disposed to interfere with this sentence and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

 

Representation: