R. v. YEUNG KA YIM

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 678

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the total sentence of 3 years' imprisonment imposed upon him in respect of three charges of theft and one charge of burglary. He pleaded guilty to all these counts.

2. The applicant had been employed by a printing company trading as Modern Graphic Arts Co. He left the employment without giving notice to his employers. Also he did not return the key to the entrance to the premises.

3. Before leaving he entered the premises without authority and stole $30,000. This was the subject of the first charge. Some three months later he again entered the premises and on this occasion stole a Dupont lighter. This was the 2nd charge.

4. Six weeks later he again entered the premises at night and stole a cheque. He forged his employer's signature on the cheque which was made out for $38,500 cash and encashed the cheque.

5. HH Judge Hawkes in his Reasons for Sentence stated that he was guided by the totality principal when he determined the overall sentence which was appropriate. This was on account of the fact that as the incidents referred to above were separate and distinct the applicant would end up with an excessive sentence if a proper sentence was imposed on all of the charges. That would be the case if the sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.

6. He adopted five years as an appropriate starting point. He gave the applicant the usual discount for his plea and further credit for his previous clear record. He arrived at a total sentence of three years' imprisonment.

7. We do not consider that this sentence was either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and the application is dismissed.