Ho Hoi-keung Alias Ho Keung v The Queen

Court:Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:CACC657/1971
Judgment Date:28 Oct 1971
CACC000657/1971 HO HOI-KEUNG ALIAS HO KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000657/1971

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 657 OF 1971

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

BETWEEN
HO Hoi-keung alias HO Keung Appellant
and
THE QUEEN Respondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 28th October, 1971.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. In this case the appellant was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment in respect of offences upon which no convictions had ever been recorded.

2. However, there is nothing sinister about the case. The mistake was an innocent one and the appellant deserved the sentences imposed. It is well however, here to set out the facts, if only for the reason that such a mistake could so easily happen again.

3. The appellant was convicted, perfectly properly, by a magistrate on a charge of robbery and another charge of wounding and was sentenced to two years imprisonment on the first charge and to one year's consecutive imprisonment on the second charge. He appealed against that sentence and I dismissed his appeal. Immediately afterwards he appeared to appeal against a sentence of one month's imprisonment for going equipped for stealing and another sentence of nine months imprisonment for theft. Those two sentences were expressed to be consecutive to each other and consecutive to the three years which he was serving for robbery and wounding.

4. The sentences for going equipped for stealing and for theft were imposed by a different magistrate from the one who imposed the sentence for robbery and wounding. The sequence of events was that the appellant was conditionally discharged for twelve months on the 15th March, 1971 for going equipped for stealing. He was again conditionally discharged by the same magistrate, just one week later, for theft. This unusual situation arose probably because the magistrate in question, who, I am informed is now on leave, was told on each occasion upon which the appellant appeared before him, that the appellant had a clear record. In fact, at the 15th March, 1971, the appellant had five previous convictions namely two for dangerous drugs offences, one for robbery and two for theft. Had the magistrate been aware of this record it is extremely unlikely that the appellant would have been conditionally discharged on either occasion.

5. On the 2nd...

To continue reading

Request your trial