THE QUEEN v. TSANG LEUNG-KWAN

CACC000866/1983

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1983 No. 866 (Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN   and   TSANG LEUNG-KWAN

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

Date: 20th October, 1983

 

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Li, J.A.:

1. The applicant is convicted of burglary on his own plea after 16 prosecution witnesses had been called. In fact, he was one of the four accused charged together with a previous applicant, KO Chi-yau. In the case of KO Chi-yau, the judge saw fit to order consecutive sentences in respect of his two set of convictions - one in April this year and one in May this year. In the case of this applicant the judge ordered a concurrent sentence.

2. He committed an offence of burglary sometime in November 1982. He pleaded not guilty in April. He was convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

3. A month later he was convicted of this particular offence of burglary for which he was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment to run concurrently with his previous 3 years imprisonment.

4. The facts concerning this applicant in this burglary were that he stole 30 ladies' dresses, 1 cassette player, 395 shirts, 1 disc player, 195 children's sweaters. His finger-prints were left on the premises. He was arrested on the 15th of March this year. He pleaded guilty after the Crown had called 16 witnesses. He says that he pleaded guilty because he hoped that he would be awarded a 3 years sentence to run concurrently with his April sentence.

5. His ground of appeal is that the conviction in April should not have been treated as a previous conviction because he was appealing against that conviction. However, he is now telling us that he has abandoned his appeal against conviction.

6. He has no other valid grounds of appeal to put before us. The judge rightly considered his personal background and was generous enough to give him at least 3 months allowance for his rather belated plea of guilty. We find that there is no merit in this application whatsoever - concurrent sentences having been ordered. For this reason, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. There is no merit in this application. It is frivolous. We order there should be loss of time of 90 days.

(Simon F.S. Li) Court of Appeal

Representation:

Appellant in person

A. Hodge (Crown) for respondent