THE QUEEN v. LEE WAI LING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 717 OF 1988

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) of the Theft Ordinance, before Mr Hill in Central Magistrates Court. He admitted entering the British Council offices in Hennessy Road and stealing $50 from a teacher's purse. He was caught red-handed and the money was recovered.

2. It is misleadingly stated on the charge sheet that the appellant is unemployed and of no fixed abode. In fact he left Hong Kong in 1962 and spent the next 25 years working in Chinese restaurants in England. He went to Canada in 1987 and is now part-owner of a restaurant in Toronto. He returned to Hong Kong for a holiday in June and committed this offence on the spur of the moment. He has no previous convictions.

3. The magistrate considered that the offence was on a par with pickpocketing and said he would have sentenced the appellant to 12 months imprisonment but for his guilty plea.

4. Burglary is certainly a serious offence and carries a maximum sentence on indictment of 14 years. This particular crime, however, was a relatively trivial example of the offence. Pickpockets receive substantial sentences because their offences tend to be repeated and because of the need for deterrence.

5. These factors do not exist in the present case. I do not think the magistrate paid sufficient regard to the appellant's hitherto clear record and to the circumstances of the offence itself. He has been in custody for two months already. The appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced to two months imprisonment, which will allow his immediate release and return to Canada.