THE QUEEN v. KO CHI-YAU

CACC000640/1983

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1983 No.640 (Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN   and   KO CHI-YAU

Coram: McMullin, V.-P., Li & Silke, JJ. A.

Date: 20th October, 1983

 

__________

JUDGMENT

_____________

Li, J.A.:

1. The applicant is convicted of four charges of burglary on his own plea.

2. The facts as admitted by the applicant are that between the 21st of June, 1982 and the 16th of March, 1983 when he was arrested, he managed to burgle into various shops and places, stealing cash, ornaments clothes, watches in three different sets of premises leaving his finger-prints behind in, at least, three sets of the premises. The total value of the clothings he stole estimated to $35,000, the watches - $23,000. He was caught on the 16th of March. None of the property was recovered except a pain ticket was found on him. He pawned the watch some time early in December 1982. The watch that he stole an the 3rd of December 1983.He was caught when pawning the watch. Some stolen watches were also found in his home.

3. Having considered his personal background, the judge observed that he was aged 25, had seven previous convictions and that he needed money because his wife was then expecting a child. He also took into consideration that he pleaded guilty. He gave him due allowance for all these. He sentenced him to 3½ years imprisonment.

4. Before he was convicted in May this year, the applicant was separately charged with two offences and convicted of one charge of handling stolen goods in respect of which a sentence of 18 months concurrent was awarded. On the same occasion he pleaded to these four other offences. The judge imposed a 3½  years sentence in respect of those four charges to run consecutively to his 18 months sentence. No explanation or reason has been given as to why the applicant should be tried at different times within a matter of a month for offences which were committed well within the period between June 1982 and 15th March, 1982 or why he was separately convicted and separately sentenced.

5. One of his grounds in support of his application for leave to appeal against sentence is that these sentences should be concurrent. We feel that there is some justification in ordering a concurrent sentence in the sense that had the other charges been heard by the same judge at the same time the judge would not have sentenced to no more than 5 years imprisonment. In the event, we feel that justice will be done if we order that the sentences of 18 months be concurrent sentences with the sentence he is about to receive in respect of these four charges.

6. Having regard to the great value of the goods stolen and his previous convictions, we feel that it is appropriate that the applicant should serve a sentence of 4 years. For these reasons, we grant leave to apply, allow the appeal to the extent that the sentences in respect of the four charges of burglary in the court below be varied to one of 4 years each to run concurrently with one another and that the 18 months sentence in respect of his previous conviction in April to ran concurrently with his 4 years sentence. In short, he has to serve a total of 4 years imprisonment.

(Simon F.S. Li) Court of Appeal

Representation:

Appellant in person

A. Hodge (Crown) for respondent