LO MAN-HUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000709/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:
	LO Man-hung	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 4th October, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was convicted of being in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to section 33(1) of the Public Order Ordinance. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He appeals against his conviction and sentence.

2. Two police officers on plain clothes patrol saw two men of whom the appellant was one, acting suspiciously, so they approached them revealing their identity. The two men bolted and the police officers gave chase. The appellant was seen to remove his shirt and throw it away.

3. His companion escaped, but the appellant was caught and a fruit knife about seven inches long was found in the shirt which he had discarded.

4. The appellant appeared in person at the hearing of the appeal and told the court that the police happened to find a shirt, in the pocket of which was a knife, at the scene. It was not his shirt as it was dirty and the court could see that the shirt he was wearing at the hearing of his appeal was spotless.

5. There were no grounds for allowing the appeal against conviction and it was dismissed.

6. The appellant is aged 23 and he has a previous record of convictions. Though these include two cases of assault and a robbery, these offences cannot have been very serious. He was bound over on each occasion for the assault and only received a sentence of nine months' imprisonment for the robbery which was in 1973.

7. There is also the fact, which was pointed out by the appellant, that the knife was small and was not used and no intention to do an illegal act with the knife was proved. This is a case of mere possession.

8. The sentence of two years in these circumstances is excessive. It is well above the average sentences passed for the offence at the current period of time. I therefore allow the appeal against sentence to the extent that the sentence of one year will be substituted for the sentence of two years passed by the magistrate.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

F. Wong for crown/respondent.