HKSAR v. WAI YING CHOR

HCMA 183/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2001

(On Appeal from STCC 177/2001)

____________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. On 5 February 2001 the Appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of handling stolen goods and to one offence of giving false information to a pawnbroker.

2. In respect of the 'handling' offence he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and in respect of the 'false information' offence he was sentenced to 1 month imprisonment, those sentences to be served consecutively making 13 months in all.

3. The Appellant appeals against sentence upon the general ground that it was too severe. The reality is that he complains not about the 1 month sentence - but the 12 month sentence. His principal concern is for the welfare of his family during his absence in prison.

4. The facts presented to the learned Magistrate can be shortly stated. On 30 August last year a resident of a house in Shatin locked it up and left at 12.30 pm. When she returned at 5.30 pm that same day she found that somebody had broken into the premises; had ransacked them and had stolen property including a Rolex watch valued at in excess of $30,000.00.

5. That Rolex watch was pawned in Sham Shui Po by the Appellant at 4.00 pm on the same day for $6,000.00. When he was arrested the Appellant told the police that while he was taking a rest in a park at Shek Kip Mei an unknown man had approached him and had asked him to pawn the watch on his behalf for a reward of 10% of the sum realized. In the summary of facts it is stated that the Appellant had agreed to do this - he believing that the watch had been stolen; that he had pawned the watch and had given the unknown man $5,400.00 and that he (the Appellant) had admitted giving a false address to the pawnbroker.

6. Before me the Appellant has sought to resile from his earlier admission of the fact that when he received the watch he believed that it was stolen.

7. In his reasons for sentence in respect of the handling offence the learned Magistrate says that he adopted a starting point of 18 months imprisonment and that he reduced that by 1/3 in respect of the guilty plea.

8. Given that the Appellant has a criminal record going back over 30 years which includes convictions for robbery; being a member of a triad society; possession of dangerous drugs and theft, I find myself unable to say that the learned Magistrate either erred in that starting point or imposed a sentence which was manifestly excessive.

9. This appeal must fail and it is dismissed.