HKSAR v. WU FUNG

CACC 122/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 122 OF 2000)

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Wong JA: (giving the judgment of the court)

1. The applicant pleaded guilty before Judge Fung in the District Court to 3 charges of burglary. He was sentenced to a total of 3 years and four months' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence. It is to be noted that the applicant was also sentenced in SKC 2250/99 to a term of imprisonment for 18 months in connection with a charge of illegally remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration. The judge, very properly, ordered the sentence imposed on the burglary charges to be served consecutively with the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.

2. The facts before the judge were these :

" Between the night of 7 August 1999 and the small hours of 8 August 1999, the defendant burgled three residential units in Block C, Grandeur Gardens, Tuen Mun. He broke into each of the premises through the toilet window. He stole HK$450 from one unit (Charge 1), a watch, HK$1,100 and ￥650 Renminbi from another unit (Charge 2) and HK$2,400 from yet another unit (Charge 3).

Fingerprints of the defendant were lifted from the premises in charges 1 and 2. He admitted also to charge 3 under caution."

3. The only complaint in this appeal is that the global starting point of 5 years' imprisonment for the three charges of burglary was too high and the sentence of 40 months imposed on the applicant after the one-third discount was manifestly excessive.

4. In passing sentence, the judge took into account the applicant's age, his personal background and his criminal record in Hong Kong. He first entered the territory illegally in 1996 and committed the offence of robbery. He was sentenced to a total sentence of 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment. He sneaked into Hong Kong again in August 1999 and committed the present offences. Mr Chapman, who appears for the Respondent, correctly pointed out in his written submission that the applicant was not only an illegal immigrant committing offences of burglary in occupied domestic premises in the middle of the night, but had some 3 years earlier been guilty of similar conduct having entered the territory illegally and committed the offence of robbery. We have considered the argument by Mr Kwok on behalf of the applicant. We have also considered the previous decisions of this court to which Mr Kwok had made reference. Suffice it to say that there are distinct features in this case that were not present in the other cases. This is clearly a case that calls for deterrent sentences. We have to discourage people from the Mainland who come here illegally for no good purpose except to reap quick financial rewards by committing serious crimes. We are satisfied that the starting point of 5 years in the present case for a total of three burglaries committed in the middle of the night in occupied domestic premises is appropriate and the sentence of 40 month's imprisonment is, in our view, neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. There is no merit in this appeal and the application is accordingly dismissed.