LAM FAT SHUI v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000219/1975
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 219 OF 1975
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LAM FAT SHUI | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 15th April, 1975.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The Appellant was stopped in the street by the police, who thought he was acting in a furtive manner. They began to search him but he suddenly broke away and tried to escape. He was caught after a short chase. He was found to be carrying two wrist-watches and a sum of money. Believing the watches to have been stolen the police questioned him and he admitted that he had earlier robbed two men in Sun Lau Street, Hung Hom. He was arrested and taken to the police station. The robberies were never reported and attempts to trace the victims were unavailing.
2. The Appellant was charged with robbery against each of the two men and alternatively with unlawful possession of suspected stolen goods. He pleaded Guilty to the two robbery charges and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment consecutive on those charges.
3. The learned magistrate in his Reasons indicated that he had regard to the seriousness and prevalence of this kind of offence and to the fact that the Appellant had previous convictions which included a robbery with aggravation and for larceny from the person. As against this I am impressed by the facts that but for his frank confession the Appellant could not have been convicted save upon the alternative charge of unlawful possession, for which the maximum sentence would be three months' imprisonment. Moreover we do not know the circumstances which turned the thefts into robbery. Not without some hestitation I have come to the conclusion that the Appellant's willing co-operation has not received the credit it deserves. Assumed that the robberies were separate transactions, it was not improper to give consecutive sentences for offences which were entirely separate and distinct, but I think justice would be done if I were to allow this appeal to the extent of ordering that the terms of imprisonment should run concurrently rather than consecutively. The appeal is allowed to that extent only.
15th April, 1975.
Representation: