HKSAR v. LAU KIN MAN

CACC 173/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 80 OF 2012)

____________

____________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment imposed upon him on 3 May 2012 by District Court Judge Tallentire, following his conviction after trial of a single offence of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

THE CHARGE

2.  The charge alleged that on 29 August 2011 the applicant had entered a warehouse in Pak Sha Tsuen, Yuen Long and stolen 125 boxes of flour.

Reasons for sentence

3.  The judge noted that the applicant had been employed previously at the premises that he burgled and that he had been apprehended in the act of stealing the boxes of flour which he had loaded onto a lorry of which he was previously the driver.  He noted that the flour was worth $12,500 but that in the circumstances nothing was lost.  Noting that the applicant had four previous convictions, three of which were for offences of dishonesty the judge imposed a sentence of 2½ years’ imprisonment, which he described as being the usual tariff for non-domestic burglary.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

4.  In his home-made grounds of appeal against conviction the applicant simply gives notice of this application, but provided no grounds in support of the application.  Today, however the applicant informs the court that his father, who is 87 years of age, suffers from a serious kidney ailment and an inoperable ailment in his bile duct.  His mother, who is 85 years of age, also suffers from ill health and is unable to care for his father.  He is the only one able to do so.  He asks for a reduction in sentence so that he can care for his parents.  Further, the applicant reminds the court that no property was lost and he asserts that the victim of the burglary is willing to re-employ him.

A CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS

5.  Given that the applicant had been convicted for burglary in October 2006, for which he had been sentenced to 2½ years’ imprisonment and that he was convicted in November of that year for an offence of theft, for which the three month sentence imposed was made consecutive to that imposed for burglary, the judge was generous in not enhancing the starting point taken for sentence for this offence.  Certainly, given that in having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence the judge alluded to the fact that there were “overtures of breach of trust in that you returned to your former workplace and used your knowledge of the arrangements”, the sentence imposed upon the applicant was entirely justified.

Conclusion

6.  In the result, I am satisfied that there is no merit in the proposed grounds of appeal against sentence.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.