HKSAR v. LI HEI CHUEN

HCMA 1083/2006
HCMA 1084/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEALS NO. 1083 AND 1084 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 10254 AND STCC 10082 OF 2006)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. In these two appeals, the appellant appeals against the sentences imposed on him on 12^th October and 20^th October by Mr Jenkins at Shatin Magistrates’ court, following his pleas of guilty on each occasion to a separate count of theft.

2.  The sentences have already been the subject of an unsuccessful attempt by the appellant to persuade the magistrate to review them.  Both offences involved the shoplifting of a number of items of groceries from a supermarket.

3.  The first offence to come before the court was the second in time and took place on 11^th October 2006 at the Park’n Shop supermarket in Lucky Plaza in Shatin.  The defendant stole 10 items worth $174.  At the time of the offence, he had over Renminbi 11,000 and over HK$11,000 on him.  He admitted that he committed the offence out of greed.

4.  He appeared before the magistrate the following day.  The court was told that the appellant was then aged 61 and that he had been before the court on 40 previous occasions, 35 of those occasions being for theft related offences.  He had served numerous terms of imprisonment.

5.  The magistrate was informed that the appellant’s 23-year old daughter was suffering from serious burn injuries and that she needed help from others in order to look after herself.

6.  The magistrate described the appellant as a serial thief.  He said that the sentences imposed on the appellant in the past had not deterred him from committing further offences.  He adopted a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment which he enhanced by 3 months to reflect the fact that the appellant had not been deterred by previous sentences.

7.  He then gave the appellant a discount of one-third to reflect his plea of guilty, resulting in a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment.  The magistrate took steps to ensure that the Social Welfare Department looked into and assisted in the welfare of the appellant’s daughter.

8.  The second offence to come before the court had been committed two days before the first offence on the 9^th October 2006.  The appellant had stolen five items from the CRC Supermarket in Hin Keng Shopping Centre in Shatin.  He was charged with the offence the same day and bailed to appear before Shatin Magistracy for plea on 17^th October.

9.  It, therefore, follows that the subsequent offence at Park’n Shop was committed while he was on bail awaiting his court appearance in respect of the CRC Supermarket offence.  When the matter came before the magistrate on 20^th October, he adopted the same principles of sentence as he had on the first occasion.

10.  He adopted a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment and he enhanced that to 9 months to reflect the failure of previous sentences of imprisonment to deter the appellant.

11.  He then gave the appellant a discount of one-third resulting in a sentence of 6 month’s imprisonment.  Taking into account the totality of the sentences, he ordered that 3 months of the 6 months imposed for this offence should run consecutively to the sentence he had imposed on 12^th October.

12.  The appellant today has asked this court to suspend his sentence so that he can return home to look after his daughter.  He also wishes to attend his brother’s wedding and to repair his parents’ grave.  He said that, in contrast to past occasions when he was sentenced to imprisonment, he feels much worse on this occasion because of the condition of his daughter.  He says he will not re-offend again.

13.  I have listened very carefully to all that the appellant has said to me today.  What has happened to his daughter is tragic and he has my greatest sympathy.  However, he was fully aware of his daughter’s injuries which had been sustained more than two months before he committed these offences.

14.  Despite knowing of those injuries, he went on to commit these two offences.  An aggravating feature is that he committed the Park’n Shop offence while on bail for the CRC Supermarket offence.  At least insofar as the Park’n Shop offence was concerned he had a large sum of money on him, part of which could have been used to pay for the goods.

15.  Deterrent sentences were clearly called for in view of the appellant’s past history of offending.

16.  In my view, the magistrate was fully justified in passing the sentences he did.  Steps have been taken by the Social Welfare Department to give the appellant’s daughter the assistance that she needs.

17.  I dismiss the appellant’s appeal.

18.  In doing so, I express the hope that the appellant really does mean what he has said today and that at last he may have realised the folly of his ways and that he does have a useful role to play in life in the future by caring for his daughter.