HKSAR v. CHAN MAN HING

CACC 233/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 13 OF 2002)

______________

______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. On 23 April 2002, the Applicant was convicted in the District Court before Deputy Judge Browne of three counts of theft and one count of handling stolen goods. The charges all involved motor vehicles. He was sentenced on the same day to 4 years' imprisonment for each offence, all to run concurrently.

2. By a Notice of Appeal dated 22 May 2002, the Applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction alone. This application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 7 January 2003. At the hearing of that application, the Applicant was represented by counsel on the handling charge.

3. By a Notice of Application dated 19 February 2003, the Applicant now seeks leave out of time to appeal against sentence. The request for an extension of time is not opposed provided only that the application for leave has merits.

4. I am of the view that no arguable grounds of appeal exist:

(1) The sentence of 4 years for the offences is in line with the usual range of sentences for offences of their nature. The judge cannot be said to have passed sentences that were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

(2) The Applicant complains that the judge wrongly sentenced him on the basis he was the mastermind or lynchpin of a syndicate. What the judge said was that although the vehicles involved were not of high value, there was no doubt that the Applicant was running an established criminal enterprise. The equipment found in the garage housing the relevant vehicles showed this to be the case. For example, there was a systematic erasing of chassis and engine numbers, changing of number plates and metal punches were found on the premises which were used to erase engine and chassis numbers. The proprietor of the garage was the Applicant. Apart from the evidence before the judge, his counsel's written submissions at the hearing of the application for leave against conviction stated that he dealt with the cars found in the garage. Further, in his letter dated 5 April 2003, he states that he set up the garage and ran it.

(3) The other reasons given in the Applicant's letters dated 29 January 2003 and 5 April 2003 do not advance the matter much further. The same can be said of the various letters that have been sent to the court by various persons.

5. It is, of course, unfortunate for his family that the Applicant finds himself in this position. I can readily sympathise with his and his family's predicament, and I have no doubt that the Applicant is otherwise a good family man. All I can say is that it is more unfortunate that the Applicant committed these offences when he should have thought of his family first.

6. I therefore refuse an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence and dismiss the application for leave.