LAM MING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000693/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 693 of 1968

—————–

BETWEEN
LAM MING Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN Respondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 12 December 1968

—————–

JUDGMENT

—————–

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant was charged before the magistrate on four charges, two of robbery with aggravation and two of larceny from the person.

2. Once again the record placed before me is not complete. However, I am told that the appellant pleaded guilty to the third chargewhen he came before the magistrate on 13th September and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. At that time he pleaded not guiltyto the present three charges and the case was adjourned for trial. When the appellant came before the court on 1st November he appearsto have changed his plea to one of guilty on all the three charges.

3. The appellant was arrested upon information received and property suspected to have been stolen was found on him. He then admittedthe offences alleged against him. It appears that some of the offences had not been reported to the police and the owner of partof the property cannot be found. The appellant was convicted in 1965 of offences of demanding money with menaces and of larceny andwas placed on probation for eighteen months. Only six months later he was convicted again and on that occasion he was sent to theTraining Centre. He has therefore been given every opportunity to reform. He comes before me saying that he committed these offencesbecause he was short of money. It appears that some of the property stolen could not be recovered because the appellant lost it instreet gambling. His present plea, therefore, carries little weight.

4. The sentences imposed were seven months imprisonment on each of the robbery charges and three months’ for the second larceny fromthe person. All the sentences were to run consecutively and therefore the total amounts to 23 months. In all the circumstances Ido not think that that was improper.

5. The appeal is dismissed.

12th December, 1968.

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Evans for the Respondent