THE QUEEN v. YEUNG MAN

___________

_________

JUDGMENT

_________

Penlington, J.

1. The applicant in this case was originally charged with robbery. However the Crown elected to accept a plea of guilty to handling stolen goods under S. 24 of the Theft Ordinance.

2. The facts as agreed by the applicant were not, perhaps, as full as they might have been but were that a Rolex watch was taken by force from a lady in a lift in April 1985. In July of the same year, during course of routine enquiries, the police found the watch in a pawnshop and it was identified by the victim as being hers. It was agreed that one NG Kam-man had pawned the watch, acting on behalf of the applicant who had given it to him. The applicant pleaded guilty to the fact that he had handled this watch knowing it to be stolen.

3. The applicant has a bad record of previous convictions going back to 1966 when he was put on probation, and in 1971 he was sent to a training centre for robbery. Since then, he has committed further robberies, including one in 1981 when he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. Handling of stolen. goods has always been regarded as a serious offence, almost as serious as actually taking part in the theft itself. In view of the circumstances of this case, the previous record of the applicant, and taking into account his plea of guilty, a sentence of 3 years imprisonment is certainly not excessive. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.