HKSAR v. CHEN SHIJI

HCMA202/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2007

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 5428 OF 2006)

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

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

Before : Deputy High Court Judge D. Pang in Court

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

REASONS  FOR  JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was convicted on his own plea of one charge of “using a false instrument”, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 [Charge 1] and three charges of “theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 [Charges 2 to 4].  He was sentenced to a total of 30 months’ imprisonment.  The appellant appeals against that sentence.

2. Charges 2 to 4 were committed on 25 July 2006, 21 October 2006 and 30 November 2006 respectively.  They involved Wanchai, Central and Causeway Bay jewellery shops in which the appellant appropriated high value items with speed, skill and cunning.  It was by pure chance that on 5 December 2006 he was recognized by police for theft at the Convention Centre Jewellery Fair in 2004 and was stopped and questioned.  He produced a forged two-way permit [Charge 1] and was subsequently brought to book for all the present offences.  No stolen property totalling $136,000 was however ever recovered.

3. The appellant is aged 38 and a mainlander.  He has two previous convictions, both for theft and one from the Jewellery Fair in 2004.

4. Individually, the appellant was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment for each count of theft and 15 months for using a fasle document.  These sentences were then compressed into 30 months to “represent a meaningful discount … from the overall maximum in the magistracy of three years’ imprisonment” (per the magistrate).

5. These sentences are appropriate and not open to criticism.  The appellant’s claim that his father now suffers from cancer or that other offenders had been given lighter sentences are of no relevance.

6. The appeal is dismissed.