R. v. CHAN HUNG

CACC000065/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 65
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN
	AND
	CHAN HUNG

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

Coram: Mortimer, Mayo and Ching, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 13 June 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mortimer, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. On 4 January 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty to one offence of burglary and a second offence of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong in front of His Honour Judge Hawkes in the District Court. He was sentenced to 2 years for the burglary and 1 year consecutive for the unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong, making 3 years in all.

The facts

2. The applicant came illegally into Hong Kong on 17 October 1995. In the early hours of 18 October, he entered a flat in Tregunter Tower through a laundry window and took from inside the flat a Gucci watch and money. The householder woke up, saw the applicant kneeling near a cabinet and disturbed him. The applicant asked for money. This was refused and the applicant left through the door which was opened by the householder. It was only after he had left that the householder discovered the missing property. On 20 October the applicant was arrested in Tregunter car park. He denied the offence at first but later pleaded guilty.

The sentence

3. The judge started at 3 years for the burglary and reduced that sentence to 2 years because of the applicant's plea of guilty. He also reduced the usual sentence for an illegal immigrant from 15 months to 12 months, making the sentence consecutive.

4. The applicant complains that the judge sentenced him for other burglaries in respect of which the culprits had not been arrested. The judge in fact sentenced him on the basis of his offences, taking into account properly the plea of guilty but noted that these are serious offences; they are prevalent in Hong Kong; and that often culprits are difficult to apprehend, indicating that there is a deterrent element in the sentence. That was a perfectly proper thing for the judge to take into account but in fact, the applicant received no increased sentence - it seems to this Court - on that basis. The sentence passed was proper. It could be said to be lenient for a serious offence of entering someone's dwelling in the middle of the night with all that entails.

5. There is no merit in this application which is refused.

(Barry Mortimer)	(Simon Mayo)	(Charles Ching)
Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr F. Veltro (SCC) (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent