HO SUK-CHING v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000533/1977
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | Criminal Appeal |
| 1977 No. 533 |
| BETWEEN: | ||
| HO Suk-ching | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
Coram: Briggs, C.J.
Date of Judgment: 17th June, 1977.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. In this case, the appellant pleaded guilty to two offences, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and possession of corrosive fluid. She was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent.
2. I will say at once that the charge for possession of corrosive fluid is defective on its face. For that reason I have allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The wording of the charge does not follow the wording of the Ordinance.
3. At the trial, the appellant asked leave of the magistrate to reverse her plea. The magistrate held a voir dire to discover whether she had pleaded guilty freely or not, reached the conclusion that she had pleaded guilty freely and refused to allow her to change her plea.
4. Mr Ip, who appeared on the appellant's behalf, urged various matters on me which indeed had been urged upon the magistrate at the time he heard the voir dire. I think the magistrate reached the proper conclusion on the voir dire and I dismiss the appeal against his order.
5. As to the sentence, the magistrate called for a probation officer's report, which is a model of its kind, and is very favourable to the appellant.
6. The assault took the form of spilling, rather than throwing, some corrosive fluid on another woman. The appellant, that other woman and that woman's husband formed what is known as the "eternal triangle". There was a quarrel between the two women as a result.
7. I think that the proper sentence passed would be a sentence of imprisonment but suspended, so I allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentence of twelve months' imprisonment be suspended for eighteen months. I took this course largely because of the contents of the probation officer's report.
| (Geoffrey Briggs) | |
| Chief Justice. |
Representation:
John Ip (John Ip & Co.) for appellant.
Cahill for crown.