R. v. WONG SHING FU

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994 No.181

___________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Wong J. (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant, who was D3 in the court below, was jointly charged with two other men in respect of two charges of handling stolen goods. He was convicted of both charges after trial before Deputy Judge Barnes in the District Court and sentenced to concurrent sentences of 5 years. He now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it is too severe.

2. Before us, he said that there were other cases in which defendants who committed similar offences were only sentenced to 2 to 3 years' imprisonment.

3. The facts were briefly that the applicant and his co-defendants were arrested by police officers, who had been conducting anti-smuggling operations, at the Tsuen Wan Pier when the defendants were trying to load 2 stolen motor cars into two high powered speedboats in the early hours of 18th September 1992.

4. The applicant had one previous conviction prior to the present offences. He was sentenced to a total of 11 years' imprisonment in 1982 for offences of arranging or assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unauthorised entrants, rape and false imprisonment.

5. In the course of passing sentence, the deputy judge observed that the inference to be drawn from the deploy of two Tai Feis (high powered speedboats) and a wooden vessel as well as the use of a crane to take the two stolen cars to China, indicated a syndicated operation.

6. The deputy judge bore in mind other cases of a similar nature and in particular referred to R. v. Chiu Ko-wai, a decision of another division of this Court: CA498/91. Offences of this type were prevalent in 1991 and are still prevalent today. It is necessary to impose deterrent sentences. The disappearance of many luxurious cars, which were stolen and shipped to China, has aroused public concern and alarm. As regards sentences in other cases, which the applicant has complained, it must be looked on its individual merits. This sentence was imposed after the applicant was convicted after trial, and not the result of a plea of guilty, which would have entitled the applicant to a discount.

7. In our judgment, the sentence is not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The application for leave is refused.