R. v. Raphael Lameck, Crim. Rev. 6-A-67; 30/1/67; Bannerman, J.

R. v. Raphael Lameck, Crim. Rev. 6-A-67; 30/1/67; Bannerman, J.

Accused were convicted for creating a malicious disturbance at a police station and of damaging the physical plant in the process. The sentences on the two counts were ordered to run consecutively. While in custody one of the accused had refused to give his name and address when ordered to do so by a policeman.

            Held: (1) Because both offenses arose out of the same transaction, they “……. Should have been ordered to run concurrently and not consecutively in the absence of any facts justifying an order to the contrary. “(2) The accused committed no wrongful act under Penal Code section 124 by refusing to answer the police officer. His name and address could have been obtained within 24 hours at the time of arraignment before a magistrate.