HKSAR v. NGUYEN CHI CHI

CACC358/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 358 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 386 OF 1999)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 14th June 1999, the Applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court before Deputy Judge Sinclair to an offence of domestic burglary. He was sentenced to twenty-six months' imprisonment and now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence.

2. The offence occurred during the day while the occupant of the burgled premises was at work. The flat which the Applicant entered was on the 4th floor of premises in Shamshuipo. Access was made possible by scaffolding on the outside of the building. The Applicant was caught six days later when he was seen in the street looking up towards the flats. He was questioned and he admitted this offence. In confirmation that he was the guilty culprit, his hands were injured and he explained that this was the result of rope burns as he winched the television set and the VCD player that he had stolen to the ground. These items were never recovered.

3. The judge took a three-year starting point and noted that there had been a plea of guilty which was entered only at the very last moment. The court had reserved three days for the trial and witnesses were in attendance ready for the start of the case. Accordingly, the judge only discounted the sentence by ten months instead of the full one-third. He was perfectly entitled to do this.

4. The Applicant was 41 and, by way of background, had twelve previous convictions. In his appeal grounds, he has referred us to the fact that this was his first burglary offence, that he co-operated with the police and eventually pleaded guilty.

5. All of these matters were taken into account by the trial judge in what was a very fair and thorough appraisal of all the circumstances in which the Applicant stood to be sentenced. We can find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed and the application is dismissed.