HKSAR v. WU MING

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 572
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, one charge of District Court assaulting a police officer in the course of duty and one charge of remaining in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration. He was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment on the first charge, 4 months on the second and 15 months on the third. The sentencing judge, Deputy Judge Chainrai ordered that the first two sentences should be served concurrently and that the third should be consecutive. This meant that the Applicant had to serve 39 months' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against these sentences.

2. The facts were simple. In the morning of 8th April 1997, police officers on duty near the Wah Fu Estate observed the Applicant acting in what they considered to be a suspicious manner. They intercepted him and searched him. He admitted being an illegal immigrant. The officers found various items of jewellery on him which he claimed he had brought from China. It subsequently transpired that the victim of a burglary in the vicinity identified the items as being hers and said that she had seen a man escaping from her premises earlier on.

3. When arrangements were being made to take the Applicant to the police station he jumped down from the police vehicle and hit one of the police officers in attendance in the face.

4. In his application for leave, the Applicant makes reference to his difficult family circumstances in China.

5. Before us, the Applicant claimed that he was only aged 14. He said that he encountered difficulties in obtaining evidence from the authorities in China to establish this. We do not think that this can be true as in his application he states that his age is 18.

6. The sentences which were imposed were lenient sentences. There is no merit whatever in this application and it is dismissed. We order that 3 months of the time he has spent in custody will not count towards the sentences he has to serve.