THE QUEEN v SZETO CHUNG CHEUNG
HTML content
CACC000540/1988
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | 1988, No. 540 |
(Criminal) |
BETWEEN | ||
THE QUEEN | ||
AND | ||
SZETO CHUNG CHEUNG |
--------------------------
Coram: Silke, V.-P & Hopkinson, J.
Date of Hearing: 3 March 1989
Date of Judgment: 3 March 1989
--------------------------
JUDGMENT
--------------------------
Silke, V.-P.:
1. The Applicant, Szeto Chung Cheung, was convicted on his own plea before His Honour Judge Caird of one offence of burglary and one offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. For those offences he received sentences of 3 years and 3 months and 3 months respectively. The latter sentence was ordered to run consecutively giving a total of 3 1/2 years.
2. The events that led to the conviction took place on 15th August 1988 when a householder returned to his home at about 5.55 p.m. and found that the wooden door was open and the meta1 gate of the flat was ajar. He saw the Applicant starting to leave and stopped him. There was a struggle. The Applicant then stabbed the householder with a screw-driver and the householders right hand was injured. Other persons came to his assistance and the Applicant was subdued.
3. The Applicant submits to us in his homemade grounds, to which he has not added in oral submissions today, says that he repents his criminal past and that some time ago he committed another burglary pleaded not guilty and was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment so to receive 3 1/2 years now on a plea of guilty, is excessive. He is 51 and has to look after his family.
4. That criminal past is a colourful one. His previous convictions go back to 1960. The majority of them are of similar nature that is burglary or larceny and for burglary there are alone 15 previous conviction. He has spent a considerable period of his life in prison.
5. In passing the sentence he did the trial judge allowed for the plea of guilty. That pleat, given the circumstances, was virtually inevitable. The judge was concerned with the totality of the sentence which he should pass for the burglary and the use of the screw-driver to wound the householder. He considered 4½ years after trial would have been the proper sentence and then discounted it
6. Those with, records such as the Applicant has can expect little discount on any sentence when there is a plea of guilty and that record is taken into consideration The sentence would not, of course be increased because of it for that would be wrong.
7. Here, we think the judge considered the matter with care and came to the right conclusions. The sentence of 3 1/2 years is by no means excessive. This application is totally without merit, there will be loss of 60 days, that is the 60 days as between the filing of the application and today will not count towards sentence.
Representation:
Applicant - in person
I.G. Cross, Esq. for Crown/Respondent