HKSAR v. LAU SZE BO

HCMA147/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 147 OF 1998

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The Appellant pleaded guilty before Mr Duggan at the San Po Kong Magistracy on the 21st January 1998, to a charge of theft and a charge of remaining in Hong Kong without lawful authority. The brief facts of the case were read to the Appellant and admitted by him. He was caught after stealing a wallet. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. The magistrate also took into account his admission of the charges and the mitigation urged on his behalf. The magistrate had in mind the sentencing principles referred to by the Court of Appeal in the R v So Man King [1989] 1 HKLR 142 in relation to the second charge and he also considered the normal sentence for pickpocketting offences and referred to R v Vy Van Kien & anor [1991] 1 HKLR 422 where a starting point of 12 to 15 months was considered appropriate after trial.

2. The magistrate found no aggravating factors. He also took into account the relative youth of the Defendant, who was, at the time, aged 20 and the totality of the sentences. Having done so, the learned magistrate imposed a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment on the charge of theft and a sentence of 12 months on the charge of remaining in Hong Kong without lawful authority. He ordered the sentences to be served consecutively.

3. The Defendant on his appeal against sentence stressed the ill health of his parents and their straitened financial situation. He had come to Hong Kong to earn a living but because he could not find a job, he had to steal. I do not consider these to be adequate mitigation taking this case outside of the established guidelines. While I sympathize with the Defendant's plight, remaining in Hong Kong illegally and stealing are not matters which can be tolerated. The learned magistrate approached the sentencing on correct principles. There is no scope for interference by me. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal against sentence.