R. v. CHEUNG WING SUN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.655 OF 1996

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He had earlier on been sentenced to a four months suspended sentence for a theft which was committed earlier. That was activated by the learned magistrate. He now appeals against sentence.

2. It was a burglary on the San Miguel. The appellant was making an escape while climbing over a wall. Quite unfortunately, there were police officers passing by and they were in fact waiting for him outside the wall. So he was in effect caught red-handed with the stolen articles almost in front of him. I do not think there is any alternative for him apart from pleading guilty to the charge.

3. He is 47 years of age. He was divorced and is living alone. He has two children in China. They are all grown up. He has another two children in Hong Kong but I do not know their particulars, save that they are 16 and 18. He has three brothers in Hong Kong as well. He had been a construction site worker earning $11,000. Unfortunately, he had been unemployed for six to seven months prior to the offence. He asked for leniency on this occasion.

4. It appears that the learned Magistrate used a starting point of nine months' imprisonment and reduced it to six months on account of his plea of guilty. In fa½1/2 years in a non-domestic place. In the present case, it was, of course, a commercial building or construction site. Hence, in my view, this sentence is already on the lenient side. The four months suspended sentence was in connection with another offence and there is no reason why that ought not to be activated. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the appeal and it is dismissed.