LEE CHAM CHUFN v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000347/1976
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| Criminal Appeal | |
| 1976 No.347 |
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LEE CHAM CHUEN | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.A.
Date of Judgment: 28th April 1976.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This Appellant was convicted on his own plea on two charges of wounding and he appeals against sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment on each charge consecutive. He has said very little before me and his plea is really that these sentences are manifestly too severe.
2. The circumstances were that he and another man went into a beer shop and endeavoured to obtain goods on credit. They were obviously known to the proprietor, who refused credit. The Appellant then seized two knives which were on the counter, gave one of them to his companion and they both then chopped the proprietor. Someone else came to assist and he also was chopped. As in a case which was before me yesterday, where the offence was under the same statutory provision, there is no medical evidence of any kind before the court, and as I then indicated it seems to me that where an offence involves physical violence the nature of any wound is a vital factor and those responsible for prosecuting cases in the magistrates' courts should ensure that such evidence is put before the magistrate. It is material that these two men did not go armed to the scene, although it seems very clear that they had ideas of ensuring that they did get credit. It is also to be noted that in mentioning the matters which he took into consideration the learned magistrate observed that the Appellant "would be one of those in taking human lives without hesitation". With respect I think that was going a little far.
3. The Appellant had previous convictions, including two for robbery. There has been some argument whether these sentences should in any event have been concurrent or consecutive and this is a problem which often causes difficulty. I am not prepared to say that it was wrong to pass consecutive sentences, but I would reiterate the warning which was given in the case of Kastercum (1972) 56 Cr. App. R. 298 that in cases where the offences are part of the same transaction there is always a danger that the total sentence will be excessive if consecutive sentences are passed. In the absence of evidence of serious injury I am satisfied that the total sentences here are too great and that they should be reduced to a total of eighteen months' imprisonment. I shall achieve that by ordering that the sentences run concurrently, but I do not think it would have been wrong to order a sentence of nine months' consecutive on each charge.
28th April 1976.
Representation: