THE QUEEN v. VU VAN DO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1127 OF 199

__________

BETWEEN

___________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This young Vietnamese was sentenced to a total of 21 months imprisonment for Theft, Uttering a Forged Document and Escape from a closed camp. He was sentenced to 12 months, 6 months and 3 months consecutively.

2. As far as the 2nd defendant was concerned, the Magistrate in his reasons for sentence very properly expressed the view that he had some doubt as to the proof of that conviction. The facts were very scant. Before people are sent to prison, it is the prosecution's duty to present clear facts, so admissions really reflect the criminality involved.

3. He was an 18 years old and he snatched a gold necklace; the Magistrate took as a starting point 18 to 24 months. In my judgment, that was wrong in principle, for these young Vietnamese, as I have said before, although they cause public disquiet when they are acting singularly, should receive a short sharp shock. The appropriate sentence here was one of 6 months' imprisonment.

4. As far therefore as the first offence is concerned, I reduce it from 12 to 6 months. As far as the 2nd offence is concerned, I make that sentence concurrent in view of the Magistrate's disquiet. As far as the sentence of escaping from the Vietnamese Boat. People Camp, the general practice among the Magistrates which I have found is to make the sentence concurrent if there is another offence for which they are charged. So I should make that 3 months concurrent.

5. The Appellant may therefore be released.