LEE CHUN-SING v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000347/1978
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| Criminal Appeal | |
| 1978 No. 347 |
| BETWEEN | ||
| LEE Chun-sing | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Cons, J.
Date of Judgment: 4th May 1978.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This appellant was convicted of stealing electricity. This is not the first time he has committed that offence. He was convicted only two months previously. When I read the papers before the hearing today I thought I might derive some assistance by looking at the record of that earlier conviction. I therefore bespoke the record from Causeway Bay Magistracy. I regret to say that I was not able to derive the slightest assistance from it. Apart from the formal charge sheet the record consists of a rubber chop:
| " | Charge read and explained. |
| Plea Guilty. | |
| Nothing to say. | |
| Fined: $____." |
and underneath that a date stamp. The only hand written words are the figure "$500" inserted in the appropriate place and the signature of the magistrate. I do not know who he is. There is a space on the front of the printed charge sheet for his name to be filled in. No one has bothered to do so.
2. There is some indication that it may be standard practice in that magistracy to chop each charge sheet in this way before it is handed up to the sitting magistrate. If so the magistrate may be to some extent for given. But it seem to me nothing more than an invitation to a magistrate to ignore his duty to make a sufficient record of the essential features of each case. For my part I would be pleased to see the practice, if it is so, discontinued. I know from experience the pressures imposed upon a magistrate in the No. 1 Court of a busy magistracy, and I have every sympathy with a magistrate who is required to fill that position for any length of time. I also know however that by making the appropriate effort it is nevertheless possible, and without unduly slowing the business of the court, to keep a proper record.
3. I should at the same time like to make it clear that I do not in any way criticise the learned magistrate, Mr. John Pang, who dealt with the case which is now appealed before me. His record of the proceedings is a model of its kind, combining brevity with coherence, containing all that is necessary and including nothing that is not.
4. In the particular instance a sentence of three months was imposed. On the facts presented to the magistrate that was a correct and proper sentence. However, since he was released on bail pending appeal the appellant has undergone very severe surgery and such as would not normally have been expected for a man of his comparative youth. In view of this misfortune I think it possible for this court to take a merciful view at this stage and vary the sentence to a fine of $2,000.
Representation:
Mr. D. Ng of Messrs. Raymond Tang & Co. for appellant.
Mr. B.S. Dawson, Crown Counsel, for respondent.