AU PO-LO v. THE QUEEN

CACC000226/1978

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1978 No. 226

BETWEEN:
	AU Po-lo	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 18th March, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft. He stole a tin of sardines and a pair of gloves from a supermarket, the value of the goods was $4.30. The magistrate recorded a conviction and discharged the appellant conditionally on his entering into a recognizance in the sum of $250 to be of good behaviour and to appear when called on for sentence or at any time within two years.

2. The appellant appeals against this sentence and what, in fact, he asks is that no conviction be recorded.

3. Various matters were urged before me in mitigation, matters which were not put before the magistrate. From what I was told in Court it appears that the appellant is a dutiful son to his parents. He is an exceptionally hard-working young man, holds a good job and is trying to better himself by studying at the Polytechnic. It is quite obvious from his appearance in court alone that he is very remorseful for what he has done. It was done while he was under considerable stress from pressure of work and it was a momentary impulse.

4. I think the appellant has learned his lesson and that this is a case in which I can order that the conviction be not recorded. The effect of recording a conviction in this case would weigh very heavily on the future of this appellant who is a telecommunications officer serving with the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. In the event, I allow the appeal and order that the conviction be not recorded.

 

 

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Sanguinetti (D.L.A.) for appellant.

Dick for the Crown/Respondent.