R. v. TSANG SHU YIE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 753
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the total sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed upon him for two counts of theft and one count of handling stolen goods. He pleaded guilty to these offences.

2. On the agreed facts the applicant was a member of an organised gang who stole container tractors and then drove them to China where they were disposed of by prior arrangements. The applicant's role was to be the driver of the vehicle.

3. It was a reasonably sophisticated operation. Another member of the gang would break into the vehicle and render it capable of operating. Documentation was available which would enable the vehicle to proceed through the check point at the border on the basis that there was no manifested cargo being delivered to China. The applicant would then go to a predetermined destination where the vehicle would be delivered and in exchange an agreed sum of money would be received. The applicant would then return to Hong Kong. The applicant and others were caught red handed by the police.

4. The trial judge Deputy Judge Andree Wiltens approached sentencing the applicant by adopting a sentence of two years' imprisonment taking into account the pleas and while making each sentence basically concurrent adjusted it for totality by ordering that each sentence would start running six months after the previous one thus giving a total of three years' imprisonment.

5. In the grounds of appeal lodged by the applicant he refers to the difficult background circumstances of his family. It would appear from the background report which was before the judge that the applicant had experienced a business failure in relation to a venture he had entered into with a partner. He had borrowed a substantial amount from relatives and it appeared that his anxiety to repay these moneys had been one of the principal motives of the applicant in committing these offences.

6. These were quite serious offences. The sentences imposed were within the proper range for offences of this nature and we do not consider that we can interfere with the sentences imposed. The application is dismissed.