WONG KWEI v. THE QUEEN

CACC000689/1973

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 689 OF 1973.

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

 

BETWEEN
	WONG KWEI	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Morley-John, J.

Date of Judgment: 14th September, 1973.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges namely loitering and unable to give a satisfactory account of himself contrary to Section 26(a) of the Summary Offences Ordinance, and possession of an instrument fit for an unlawful purpose contrary to Section 17 of the same ordinance. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on the first charge and six months' imprisonment on the second charge, such latter sentence to be concurrent with the first sentence. He now appeals against these sentences and the grounds of his appeal are that the said sentences were too severe.

2. The appellant, who appeared in person, stated that he requested a lighter sentence, because if he was in prison for six months, his mother who was dependent on him would starve. This is a very common reason put forward in an appeal against sentence and does not find any favour with me. Time and time again the Courts have said that a person should consider the effects on his family, that the consequences of his crime may bring before he commits a crime. However, as I have already pointed out in an earlier judgment this morning, Section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance provides for a maximum sentence of three months' imprisonment or a fine of one thousand dollars. Therefore, as the learned Magistrate in his Statement of Findings has pointed out he has exceeded his jurisdiction in sentencing the appellant to six months' imprisonment, having treated this second charge as a charge of going equipped for stealing under the provision of Section 27 of the Theft Ordinance. The learned Magistrate further stated that if he had correctly noted the second charge he would have sentenced the appellant to three months' imprisonment on each charge both terms to be served concurrently, mentioning the appellant's previous record, and the fact that the appellant was interferring with vehicles while offence is very prevalent in the district where it was committed.

3. Under the circumstances the appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of six months imposed by the learned Magistrate is reduced to one of three months. The appeal in relation to the sentence of 3 months on the first charge is dismissed. Bearing in mind the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ng King v. R. (1966) H.K.L.R. 18 the reduced sentence of three months will be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of the first charge.

14th September, 1973.

 

 

	(M. Morley-John)
	Puisne Judge

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

A.M. Niamatullah for crown