HKSAR v. LEE TAI CHING

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.463
(Criminal)

-------------------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 29th July 1997, this Applicant pleaded guilty before Judge Chua in the District Court to three counts of handling stolen goods and was sentenced on each offence to 32 months' imprisonment. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He now seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The offences all related to the handling of stolen light goods vehicles. The three vehicles were stolen between August 1996 and January 1997. The Applicant (D2 at trial) appeared on the same indictment as D1 who was charged with the thefts. On the first day of trial, D2 pleaded not guilty but, on the following day, changed his pleas to guilty.

3. The facts were straightforward. D1 took the vehicles that he had stolen to D2's yard in Yuen Long. The owner of the last vehicle stolen personally searched an area of Yuen Long to see if he could find his vehicle. In due course, he managed to spot this in D2's yard and he informed the police.

4. On arrest D2, aged 61 and of previous good character, said that the vehicles were to be sold in the Philippines. He gave to the police a document which bore the name and identity card number of D1. It was this lead which enabled police to trace the thief.

5. In passing sentence, the judge took into account the following matters when deciding what discount to give for this plea of guilty, and she said:

"It is clear that after the case was adjourned yesterday on D1's guilty pleas, he offered to give evidence against D2 and a statement was taken from him. I have no doubt that this was instrumental, together with the arrival of Mr. Philip Wong as counsel, to persuade D2 that his best course was to plead guilty today.

I think it should be clear what sentencing policy is in these courts. When you bought these cars from D1, you knew that they were stolen because D1 could not produce the ignition keys or the papers. If you regretted what you had done and pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity when the case came before the plea court, you would have got a substantial discount of at least a third. If you had pleaded guilty yesterday, you would have got a 25 per cent discount. You get less today although you are still entitled to a discount because it has saved time and put a finality to the proceedings."

6. The judge went on to reject the explanations put forward for the late plea, and stated that it was her belief that the plea had been brought about because of the additional evidence which had been supplied to the defence in the form of a statement from D1.

7. The judge then went on to take a starting point of 31/2 years' imprisonment. No complaint is made about that. The sentence that she eventually imposed gave slightly more than the 20% discount from the starting point.

8. The grounds of appeal complain that insufficient discount was given for this late plea. Mr. Wong has also asked us to bear in mind the assistance given by D2 on his arrest when he made it possible for police to find D1. This information, we are satisfied, was given at a time when D2 was seeking to extricate himself from blame. He was telling the story of how he came to be in possession of the vehicles in the first place and, in doing so, he was attempting to avoid any suggestion of criminality. The only person that he was trying to help was himself.

9. We do not think that the judge erred in her approach to sentence, or in the extent to which she gave credit for these pleas.

10. In those circumstances, this application must be dismissed.