HKSAR v. LUI WAI LOK

HCMA 221/2022

[2023] HKCFI 308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 221 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 1337 OF 2022)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

1.  On 8 June 2022, the appellant pleaded guilty before Dixon Co, Deputy Magistrate, to one count of theft, contrary to s9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. The appellant was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment with a further order that $250 compensation be paid to PW1, such monies to be deducted from the monies held upon bail.

2.  By reason of his Notice of Appeal dated 8 June 2022, the appellant appeals against that sentence on the ground that it was too severe. He was granted bail pending appeal on the same date.

Facts of the Case

3.  The brief facts of the case, which formed the basis of plea, were that the defendant had been captured on CCTV stealing a vehicle tyre rim, which had been secured to a lamppost. He was later arrested and cautioned, at which time he admitted stealing the rim and selling it for HK$50.00.

Background of the Appellant

4.  The appellant was 59 years of age at the time of sentencing and single. He was on CSSA of HK$5,000 per month inclusive of rent. He suffered from depression and was subject to medication for that condition. He had committed the offence because of financial difficulties and was remorseful. He had been fully cooperative with the police. The appellant had 5 previous convictions, 3 of which were for offences of dishonesty but the last known offence had been some 10 years prior to this offending. Nevertheless, this was a deliberate intrusion into the ownership of property for personal gain, albeit minor gain, by someone with a record for dishonesty and it cannot go unmarked.

Submissions of the Appellant

5.  The appellant was unrepresented. He submitted that he had been on medication at the time of the incident and therefore he had not been completely conscious of what he was doing at the time of the offending. At the same time, he accepted that he had carried out the theft and had admitted the theft upon arrest and before the Magistrate. He did not suggest he wished to withdraw his plea. His recollection of events was hazy and his submissions, unfortunately for him, did not address why the sentence passed upon him was too severe.

Conclusion

6.  In sentencing the appellant, the learned deputy magistrate took all proper issues into account and correctly applied the relevant legal principles. His reasoning cannot be criticised.

7.  This appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.