TSANG CHEUK LUN v. THE QUEEN

CACC000444/1976

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1976 No.444

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

  

BETWEEN
	TSANG CHEUK LUN	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.A.

Date of Judgment: 13th May 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The Appellant appeals against a sentence of four months' imprisonment imposed for an offence of criminal intimidation. The charge was laid under s.24(a)(iii) of the Crimes Ordinance. It was an ill-drafted charge but nothing turns upon that. The Appellant pleaded Guilty.

2. What happened was that the Appellant was stopped by police officers, who alleged that he had committed traffic offences. Thereupon he threatened that if they charged him he might report them for bribery to the Independent Commission against Corruption. He pleaded Guilty to all the offences and it is submitted that the learned magistrate was wrong to impose what was frankly a deterrent sentence. It is said that there is no evidence that this type of offence is prevalent and that no credit was given for the plea of Guilty. It so happens that a somewhat similar case came before the Court of Appeal on 31st December last year upon an application by the Attorney General for a review of sentence. In that case the respondent had been conditionally discharged to be of good behaviour for six months in the sum of $300. Application for leave to apply for a review had been refused by the learned Chief Justice and it was, with some hesitation, also refused by the Court of Appeal. There were special circumstances in that case, particularly due to a concession which had been made by counsel for the Crown but it was said in that case that if the respondent had made a totally unjustified allegation of corruption against a police officer and persisted in that allegation then the sentence there imposed was grossly inadequate. In the present case it must be said that the allegation was not persisted in.

3. Nevertheless, this was, in my view, having regard to conditions in Hong Kong at the present time, an extremely serious matter and I think the learned judge was justified in regarding deterrence as an important part of the sentence. On the other hand it was no doubt a matter of stupidity rather than anything else on the part of this Appellant and with very great hesitation I have decided that justice will be done in the present case if, without suspending the sentence as has been suggested by counsel, I reduce the sentence to such sentence as will enable the release of this prisoner today, he having already been in custody for about one month.

4. It must, however, be clearly understood that if this type of case continues immediate sentences of imprisonment are amply justified and also that a sentence of four months (or more) would be proper.

  

13th May 1976.

  

Representation:

R. Wong (Lau, Wong & Chan) for Appellant.

Edwards, c.c. for Crown/Respondent.