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
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;