R. v. LEE TSZ HONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 534

(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 5½ years' imprisonment imposed upon him in respect of altogether 11 burglaries. He pleaded guilty to all of these offences.

2. In District Court Case 405/96 which related to four burglaries of domestic premises HH Judge Chung sentenced the applicant to four years' imprisonment. He adopted as a starting point three years' imprisonment on each count. He gave the applicant the usual 1/3 discount and as the offences were separate offences ordered that they should be served consecutively. However having regard to the totality of the sentence he reduced it to four years.

3. In District Court Cases 407 and 651 of 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty to 7 counts of burglary. As was the case with the domestic burglaries in 405/96 the value of the property stolen was not very large. Here however the premises in question were commercial premises and the judge adopted 2½ years' imprisonment as an appropriate starting point for each offence. He considered that there was a sufficient nexus between the 3 offences being charges 5 to 7 inclusive to enable him to order that the sentences to be imposed should be served concurrently. The other sentences should be served consecutively.

4. Giving the usual 1/3 discount the judge passed sentences of 20 months' imprisonment on each count. This therefore meant that on these cases a total of 100 months' imprisonment had been imposed (i.e. 20 x 5) which amounted to 8 years 4 months.

5. Adopting the totality principle the judge ordered that the total sentence on cases 407 and 651 should be 3 years 4 months' imprisonment.

6. Finally the judge considered the overall totality in respect of all three cases which embraced the 11 burglaries.

7. Having regard to all the circumstances he adjusted the sentences to be served in such a manner that the total sentence to be served would be 5½ years.

8. In his grounds of appeal the applicant complains that the sentence was unduly harsh.

9. He was a man of 22 years of age with one previous conviction for theft.

10. The simple question which has to be considered is whether the total of 5½ years' imprisonment for 11 burglaries is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. It is undoubtedly a heavy sentence for a series of burglaries.

11. We have however come to the conclusion that it is not a sentence which we would be justified in interfering with. The application is accordingly dismissed.