HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1986

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI-MAN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
40486-EN-1986-08-01

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI-MAN

HTML content

HCMA000488/1986

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 488 OF 1986

______________

 

BETWEEN

The Queen
and
CHAN Chi-man

_______________

 

Coram: de Basto J.

Date of Hearing: 1st August, 1986.

Date of Judgment: 1st August, 1986.

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal by CHAN Chi-man against the sentence imposed upon by a magistrate. The appellant was convicted of a charge of theft (shoplifting), and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment.

2. The appellant has three previous convictions for theft, the last two in the later half of 1985, he was released from prison on the 11th January, 1986 and he committed the present offence less than a month after his release.

3. Recent Crime Prevention Bureau statistics show an increase in shoplifting from 2,800 in 1982 to 6,482 in 1985 with 2,879 cases reported between the 1st January, 1986 and the 31st May, 1986. There is no doubt that shoplifting is very much a growth industry and is becoming a serious problem.

4. It is not uncommon for sentences of 9 months' imprisonment to be imposed for a shoplifting offence even in respect of first offenders unless, of course, the offenders are young.

5. I respectfully agree with Crown Counsel that the sentence in this case is manifestly excessive. He said he thought the appropriate sentence would have been between 6 and 9 months. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and, in particular, that he committed this offence within a month of his release from prison for theft, I think the proper sentence should have been 12 months. The appeal against sentence is allowed, the sentence of 18 months is set aside and I substitute a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment.

(Gerald de Basto)
Judge of the High Court

Representation: