THE QUEEN v. LEE CHUNG CHING
HTML content
CACC000172/1996
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | |
| 1996, No 172 | |
| (Criminal) |
| BETWEEN | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| LEE CHUNG CHING | 1st Applicant |
-----------------
Coram: Hon Nazareth VP, Liu & Ching JJA in Court
Date of Hearing: 21 August, 1996
Date of Judgment: 21 August, 1996
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Liu JA:
1. The applicant was caught by the police loitering. He confessed to seven offences of burglary, in two of which he stood to gain nothing. He was sentenced on 14 March 1996 to two months' imprisonment for the loitering charge. Of the two burglary charges in which nothing was apparently taken, he was sentenced in one to 18 months' imprisonment. For the rest of the burglary charges, he was given two years each. Except for the 18 months' sentence, the rest of the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. All these sentences were ordered to run consecutively to his 18 months' sentence, making it a total of 3 1/2 years.
2. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence. He complains that the sentence is "too heavy". From what he tells the court today, he does not, in fact, feel aggrieved by the 3 1/2 year's term. His real complaint is that he was subsequently on 14 April 1996 sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for two more confessed offences of burglary. The applicant claims that he had given instructions to those representing him before HH Judge Bailey on 14 March 1996 to have these two additional burglary offences taken into consideration. According to the applicant, his instructions were not put into execution.
3. Consequently, he is now serving his 3 1/2 years' term together with the 18 months' imprisonment that he was given by another court on 14 April 1996. The applicant is not taking any issue with the 3 1/2 years' term and his only complaint is that he has to serve the 3 1/2 years and another 18 months which he was given a monthly later on 14 April. Clearly, his application before us has no substance. It must be dismissed and we so dismiss it.
4. Evidently, the applicant may make an application, either within or out of time, for leave to appeal against his other 18 months' term. He would be at liberty to do so and set out all his circumstances for the court, entertaining his other application, to consider. His instant application is, therefore, dismissed.
| (G P Nazareth) | (B Liu) | (Charles Ching) |
| Vice President | Justice of Appeal | Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Mr Francis Lo - Crown Prosecutor for the respondent
Lee Chung-ching, 1st applicant in person