THE QUEEN v. WONG HAK ON

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Silke, V.-P.:

1. The Applicant, Wong Hak On, was convicted after trial in the District Court before Her Honour Judge Chua on 11th November 1987. The charges upon which he was convicted were first: assisting in the management of an unlawful society; second conspiracy to cause criminal damage to property and third: conspiracy to wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced respectively to two years, two and a half years and three and a half years imprisonment All the sentences were made to run concurrently.

2. Those sentences were passed on 25th November 1987 after reports were considered by the trial judge.

3. On 1st August 1988, he filed this application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time. On 9th December 1987 he had filed an application in respect of an appeal against conviction. That matter came on for hearing when he was represented by both leading and junior counsel. The application was dismissed on 21st July 1988.

4. In his affirmation grounding his present application he states that he was awaiting the result of that application before he brought this present one. But it was explained to him, as appears upon the form in relation to the application against conviction, that if he appeals against both conviction and sentence at the same time one would not have any adverse effect on the other. There was nothing to prevent both applications being made well within time.

5. The second reasons he put forward is that there was a case in the District Court in, 1986 concerning triad matters where the sentence imposed was less severe than the sentences imposed upon him. To us this morning he has accepted that that was simply a management of an unlawful society charge and did not also have a charge of conspiracy to wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm levelled against the person concerned.

6. It is incumbent upon a person who seeks an indulgence of this nature from the Court to show why that indulgence should be given to him within the general principles applicable. There must be good reasons why he is late. No good reasons have been shown here and we refuse the application for leave out of time.