HKSAR v. FAN YAU CHIT

HCMA567/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.567 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 1436 OF 2002)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. On 24 May 2002, the appellant pleaded guilty before Mr Stephen Smout at Tuen Mun Magistrates' Court on two charges, firstly an offence of theft and secondly, to a charge of remaining in Hong Kong without lawful authority, having landed unlawfully. He was sentenced as follows : in respect of the offence of theft, he was sentenced to a term of 10 months' imprisonment. In respect of his illegal entry into Hong Kong, to a term of 15 months' imprisonment. Eight months of the 10-month sentence for theft was ordered to be served consecutively, giving a total of 23 months. He now appeals against those sentences on the basis that in all the circumstances, the total term of 23 months is too long.

2. The facts are these : the complainant in respect of the first charge is a lady who was walking outside the Yuen Long Theatre in Yuen Long when the appellant approached her, and snatched her handbag from her. Inside that handbag was a lot of property which is set out in the particulars of the charge. Total value comes to $3,800. Fortunately, he was apprehended soon afterwards by police and charged with this offence as well as the offence of unlawful entry once his status had been established by the police.

3. The learned magistrate applied the correct tariff to both of these matters. It is quite clear that for an offence of theft in these particular circumstances, snatching a handbag, the appropriate sentence after trial is one of 15 months and he applied the correct discount to reflect the plea of guilty, resulting in a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment. So far as the immigration offence is concerned, it is established that the appropriate sentence is one of 15 months' imprisonment. He quite properly ordered that those terms of imprisonment should run consecutively. That is the appropriate approach to take and he considered whether the totality of 23 months was excessive in all the circumstances. He concluded that it was not and I agree. I am afraid there is no merit in this appeal. It must stand dismissed.