THE QUEEN v. YUNG WAI HUNG
HTML content
CACC000145/1984
Consecutive sentences and concurrent sentences - when appropriate.
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | 1984 No. 145 |
(Criminal) |
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN | Respondent | |
and | ||
YUNG WAI HUNG | Applicant | |
--------- |
Coram: Sir Denys Roberts, C.J., Yang and Barker JJ.A.
Date: 15th May, 1984.
___________
JUDGMENT
___________
Yang, J.A.:
1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary, but was originally sentenced by the trial judge to five months' imprisonment on eight charges of burglary, sentences to run consecutively as the judge mistakenly thought the Applicant faced eight charges jointly with his co-accused. The total term of imprisonment was therefore forty months. Upon realising his mistake, he altered his sentence to one of three years and four months concurrent on each of the two charges on which the Applicant was convicted. However, the co-accused, who faced eight charges, was also given three years and four months on each charge, sentences to run concurrently, presumably on the basis that he could have given five months on each charge, sentences to run consecutively, thereby making a total of forty months. So it seems clear that this Applicant might well feel aggrieved because he has received exactly the same total sentence on two charges as that imposed on his co-accused for eight charges. We therefore think it fair to reduce his sentence to ten months on each charge, sentences to run concurrently, to fall in line with the basis on which his co-accused was sentenced.
2. We treat his application as an appeal and allow the appeal. The sentence is therefore altered to the extent indicated.
Representation:
Mr. Yung Wai Hung, Applicant in person.
Mr. Boucaut, Crown Counsel for Respondent.