HKSAR v. LAU NGAM CHUNG
HTML content
HCMA000692/2004
HCMA 692/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 692 OF 2004
(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 587/2004)
____________
| BETWEEN | ||
| HKSAR | Respondent | |
| AND | ||
| LAU NGAM CHUNG (劉岩松) | Appellant |
____________
Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court
Date of Hearing: 27 August 2004
Date of Judgment: 27 August 2004
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
1. This is an appeal against sentence.
2. The Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a prohibited weapon and a charge of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong. He was represented. He agreed the prosecution summary of facts which stated that he had been intercepted by a patrolling police officer who had then conducted a search of his person, during the course of which a spring operated folding knife was located. The knife is what is known colloquially as a flick knife: it was some 15cm in length with a blade of some 7cm.
3. The Magistrate took 12 months as the starting point for the weapons offence and reduced it by one third for the plea. A starting point of at least that order was appropriate. The tariff sentence of 15 months after a plea was rightly taken for the immigration offence. The Magistrate considered the issue of totality and ordered that 10 months of the immigration offence be served consecutively to the weapons offence resulting in an overall sentence of 18 months imprisonment. That was a generous approach.
4. A review of the sentence by the Appellant was dismissed. During those proceedings and again in these the Appellant claims that he had surrendered himself to the police. The Magistrate rejected this attempt to modify his earlier unequivocal admissions, as do I.
5. In any event, that would affect neither the issue of possession of the knife which the Appellant still accepts he had in his pocket, nor the sentence. There is nothing in the charge which alleges that the knife was possessed for any purpose: because of the very nature of the flick knife, mere possession is the offence.
6. The appeal is dismissed.
| (A R Wright) | |
| Deputy Judge of the Court of First Instance | |
| High Court |
Representation:
Mr Vincent Wong, GC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent
The Appellant, in person