THE QUEEN v. TANG CHI PING

___________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Wong, J. delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to 2 charges of burglary and 8 charges of giving false information to pawnbrokers. He was sentenced to a total of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against this.

2. The two burglaries were committed in domestic premises within a short period of three weeks. In relation to the first charge, he was observed by the police to be inside the premises and caught red-handed. His fingerprints were found inside the victimized premises in respect of the 2nd charge. The evidence against him is therefore very strong and his plea of guilty in these circumstances would not entitle him to so significant a discount. The learned District Judge nevertheless took this into consideration and gave him discount. On the 8 occasions he pawned goods with the pawnbrokers, he used false addresses. We think that the proper sentence for the two burglaries is one of 4 1/2 years if there had been pleas of not guilty. But reasonable reduction should be allowed for his guilty pleas which resulted in saving court time.

3. We have considered the cases cited to us by Mr. Adams, which, in our judgment, do not support his contention that the sentence in this case is either wrong or manifestly excessive. The range of sentence for burglary of this type is between 2 to 6 years depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. R. v Tang Chat (Crim. App. 752 of 1981) was decided on its own facts as an act of mercy by this Court and for that reason it must be placed in a different category.

4. The appellant is 23 years of age. He has a bad record in relation to burglaries and other related offences. All the offences were committed in 1986. In June he was given a suspended sentence of three months for going equipped for stealing and resisting arrest. Only a week later he was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment for possession of instrument fit and intended for unlawful purpose, burglary and giving false information to pawnbrokers.

5. In December of the same year, he was sentenced to 2 1/2 years for burglary. He committed that offence shortly after his clause from prison in respect of his previous offences for which he was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment and he committed the present offences only 2 to 3 months after his last release from prison.

6. His record indicates to us that during the last three years he has done nothing except burgling or trying to burgle other people's houses and can be therefore described as a habitual or professional burglar.

7. In our judgment, the sentence is entirely within the range of sentence for this type of burglary with the kind of background and record of the appellant.

8. We are satisfied that the sentence imposed on the two charges of burglary, committed within a short period of 3 weeks, is a proper one. We also consider that the sentence of 4 months imposed on the appellant for 8 charges of giving false addresses to pawnbrokers is not in any way wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

9. We are also satisfied that they should be served consecutively to the sentences imposed for the burglaries.

10. We will not interfere with the sentences and refuse leave to appeal.