17.11.2014 Views

刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

32<br />

(4) The mitigating factors since sentence was imposed warranted a<br />

further reduction <strong>of</strong> sentence. However, the sentence could not be<br />

suspended as this was not a case <strong>of</strong> technical breach <strong>of</strong> the Ordinance.<br />

The family’s circumstances and the personal considerations <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Appellant had force but they were not such as to make an exceptional<br />

case to warrant a departure from the customary sentence <strong>of</strong> immediate<br />

custody.<br />

Result - Appeal allowed. Sentences <strong>of</strong> three months’ imprisonment on<br />

each charge substituted. Sentences to be served concurrently.<br />

MA 333/2000<br />

Beeson J<br />

(6.9.2000)<br />

*Leung Sun-yee<br />

#Ching Y Wong<br />

SC & Barbara<br />

Cheng<br />

(1) LAM<br />

Wai-hung<br />

(2) LAI<br />

Yeuk-ho<br />

Assault on USD hawker control <strong>of</strong>ficers/Immediate custodial<br />

sentence appropriate/Deterrent purpose <strong>of</strong> sentence<br />

<br />

- <br />

- <br />

The Appellants were each convicted after trial <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong><br />

common assault. Each was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment.<br />

The evidence at trial showed that the victims, who were USD<br />

hawker control <strong>of</strong>ficers, were physically assaulted while they were on<br />

patrol checking for incidents <strong>of</strong> obstruction.<br />

On appeal, it was submitted, first, that the magistrate erred in<br />

viewing each <strong>of</strong>fence as a ‘serious charge’, and by equating an <strong>of</strong>fence<br />

<strong>of</strong> common assault simpliciter with the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> assaulting a police<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficer in the due execution <strong>of</strong> his duty, contrary to s 36 <strong>of</strong> the Offences<br />

Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. Second, it was argued that<br />

the magistrate erred in basing her sentence in part on the fact that the<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficers were intimidated, chased and/or assaulted by persons other<br />

than the Appellants. Third, it was said that the sentence passed on<br />

each Appellant was wrong in principle and/or manifestly excessive.<br />

Overall, it was submitted that the sentence passed on each Appellant<br />

was wrong in principle and/or manifestly excessive.<br />

Held :<br />

(1) The only reasonable inference to be drawn was that this was a<br />

deliberate, concerted assault on the <strong>of</strong>ficers by a group <strong>of</strong> men. The<br />

magistrate was quite correct to treat this as a serious <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> its type.<br />

Assaults on hawker control <strong>of</strong>ficers, whether by disgruntled hawkers<br />

and shop-keepers, or by those persons who chose to ally themselves<br />

with such persons, could not be allowed to occur;

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!