LAM WING YUM v. THE QUEEN

Coram: Li, J. in Court

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was convicted of an offence contrary to Section 33(1) of the Public Order Ordinance namely for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. The evidence leading to his conviction was that two police officers returning to the Mongkok Police Station at about 1530 hours on the 19th March this year saw the appellant and another Chinese male in Nathan Road. They looked suspicious and the appellant was searched. The appellant was holding in his right hand, a roll of newspaper which contained a knife. The knife was produced and found to be a chopper of 12in. long with a handle of about 4in. He was subsequently arrested and charged convicted of the offence and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment. Originally he appealed against conviction as well as sentence. However, before the hearing of the appeal he gave notice that he has abandoned his appeal against conviction and would appeal against sentence only.

2. The appellant alleged that the sentence is manifestly excessive in the sense that despite his previous convictions he was given two years' imprisonment for simply possessing this offensive weapon in a public place. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that by comparison with yet another case decided in 1975 in the case of Yeung Chi Lung v The Queen Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 1975, the sentence of a similar offence under the Summary Offence Ordinance was reduced from two years to one year. The facts of that case and the present case are practically identical. The only difference is that whereas the appellant in Yeung's case had seven previous convictions and the appellant in this case had ten. As it has been said very often and I repeat it here that in the matter of sentence every case must be judged on its own merit. If another prisoner receives a lesser sentence it does not mean that all sentences must be reduced and gauged to the same length. In the present case the appellant had ten previous convictions. The appellant's age is 26 years old now. His first conviction was in 1969 when he was convicted of wounding. In 1971 he was convicted of possession of an offensive weapon for which he was merely bound over. For the offence of wounding he was sentenced to a training centre. In 1971 again he was convicted of hawking dangerous drugs. In 1973 he was convicted of the offence of assault with intent to rob for which he was sentenced to prison for nine months. In 1973 he was convicted of loitering and possession of an offensive weapon. In 1974 he was convicted of obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception. In 1975 he was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs. In 1977 he was again convicted of possession of an offensive weapon and resisting arrest. In 1977 he was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs and in 1978 again he was convicted of possession of equipment fit and intended for injecting dangerous drugs. It is apparent that from the age of 16 onwards the appellant had been convicted of a variety of crimes. He was in and out of prison for the last 10 years; practically every year. When he was convicted of possession of an offensive weapon for the first time in 1971, he was bound over for 12 months only. In 1973 he was again convicted of the same offence for which he was given an eight months' prison sentence. In 1977 he was again convicted of the same offence for which he was awarded eight strokes of the cane without being awarded a prison term. This is the fourth time he has been convicted of the same offence. Having regard to the whole history of the appellant's record, I am of the opinion that the sentence is not manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.