FUNG PAK HUNG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000776/1972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 776 OF 1972
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| FUNG PAK HUNG | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 1st December, 1972.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The Appellant pleaded Not guilty to possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, but was convicted after a trial.
2. The evidence for the prosecution was that two police officers in plain clothes were patrolling in Kowloon: in a corridor on a second floor of the Sincere Building they saw a shadow which aroused their suspicions and after a chase they intercepted the Appellant: he was seen to have a folding pen-knife in his hand - and it was described by the first witness in this way:
"He was holding knife in his hand which was hanging downward with palm concealing knife from view and its point protruding upwards from his grasp. I asked Defendant 'what do you intend to do with this knife'. He hesitated."
The officer says he then arrested him. This evidence was corroborated by his companion.
3. The evidence of the Appellant was that he was playing billiards in the Mongkok Billiard Rooms, that three detectives came up and arrested him without any reason whatsoever and that he was then taken to a police station and the knife planted on him.
4. The learned magistrate disbelieved the evidence of the Appellant and was satisfied that the evidence of the police officers was true. There was evidence upon which he could convict and I see no reason to differ from his conclusion.
5. The appeal against conviction must be dismissed. I would, however, observe that the learned magistrate did say in his Statement of Findings that:
" | At 20 years of age Defendant was too old for a Detention Centre." |
That, with respect, is not entirely accurate. Section 4(1) of that Ordinance says that:
"Where a person, who is apparently a young offender, is found guilty the court may send him to a detention centre",
and a "young offender" is defined in s.2 as "an offender of or over fourteen and under twenty-one years of age." I sincerely hope that there is no general misunderstanding about the age limits for Detention Centres because, in my view sentences of detention in a Detention Centre are particularly appropriate for persons in the upper segment of that age bracket.
1st December, 1972.
Representation: