KRISKO GEORGE VELALIEVICK v. THE QUEEN

CACC000838/1977

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1977 No. 838.

  

BETWEEN:
	KRISKO GEORGE VELALIEVICK	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 10th September, 1977.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was convicted of two offences: (1) assault of a police officer contrary to section 36(b) of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance, Cap. 212, and (2) criminal damage contrary to section 60(1) of the Crimes Ordinance. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the offence and three months' imprisonment for the second offence. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. In addition, the magistrate ordered the sentences to be suspended for eighteen months conditional upon the payment of $150 compensation to the first prosecution witness (a police officer) and, in addition, that the appellant leaves Hong Kong within six months of the 27th June, 1977. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentences.

2. The facts can be briefly dealt with. The appellant is a Russian and speaks very imperfect English and Chinese. He became involved in a dispute with a policeman in a taxi. During the course of the dispute the appellant assaulted the police officer and tore his uniform.

3. There are no grounds for interfering with the conviction and I dismissed the appeal against conviction. However, the magistrate erred in suspending the sentence for the first offence. Assaulting a police officer contrary to section 36(b) of Cap. 212 is an "excepted" offence under Appendix III of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. This was pointed out by the magistrate in his Statement of Findings.

4. The appellant has two previous convictions for offences of a similar nature for which he was sentenced to imprisonment. However, the present case was of a trivial nature. Basically, what prompted the incident was the inability of the appellant and the taxi driver and the police officer to understand one another. This caused the appellant to become excited. It was wrong, of course, for the appellant to act as he did, but in view of this language difficulty I for one have considerable sympathy for him.

5. I informed the appellant at the time that I was taking an exceptional view of this offence and warned him of the consequences of an indulgence in similar behaviour in the future. In the event, I allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of substituting for the sentences passed by the magistrate an order that the appellant be bound over in his own recognizance in the sum of $500 for a period of eighteen months on condition that he paid compensation to the police constable in the sum of $150 within one week. In default, the appellant is to be imprisoned for six months.

  

  

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	Chief Justice.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person

Alderdice for crown