HKSAR v. AU YEUNG SING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 153
(Criminal)

_____________

_____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Power, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant pleaded guilty to two charges. The first was a charge of burglary which alleged that on or about 23rd December at Sheung Shui he entered a building as a trespasser at the roof of No.32, Lane 4, Po Sheung Tsuen, and stole a knife, a pair of pliers, a 'Seiko' wristwatch and some food and some clothes. The second charge alleged that at that time he was an unlawful entrant. He was sentenced to two years on the first count, 15 months on the second and sentences were ordered to be consecutive. He now seeks leave to appeal against those sentences.

2. The admitted facts revealed that at about 3:30 a.m. on 23rd December 1996, a Mr. Yip was awoken when he heard some noise. He was the resident of House No.32, the house mentioned in the charge, and had erected a kitchen on the roof. He went up to inspect the kitchen and found that it had been ransacked. It seems that about this time neighbours saw the applicant on a roof and alerted other villages who apprehended him. They held him until the police arrived. The articles detailed in the charge were found on him or nearby and he admitted stealing them.

3. The judge properly took three years as the starting point and properly gave a one-third reduction for plea reducing that to two years. The sentence of 15 months was also a proper sentence to impose on the charge of unlawful entry.

4. This court has repeatedly said that it is proper that such sentences be made consecutive. We have also observed on a number of occasions in the past that householders, particularly those who reside in the New Territories, are entitled to retire in the evening with a feeling that their house and the property therein is safe from the sort of depredation that persons such as the applicant are committing. It would be wrong for the courts to exercise leniency in relation to offences of this type. It would be a failure to give what protection the courts can give to the residents of Hong Kong. The sentences in our view were not too severe and the application is refused.