Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000001/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 April 1993 before Macdougall JA, Nazareth JA, Sears J.
Criminal law – sentencing – burglary – Theft Ordinance (Cap 210) s.11 – multiple offences – concurrent vs consecutive sentences – starting point – guilty plea discount – review of sentence by Attorney General – Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by imposing concurrent sentences on three separate burglary counts committed on different dates, in different premises, against different victims – Whether the proper starting point for burglary of domestic premises by a first offender of full age is 3 years and for non-domestic premises 2.5 years – Whether failure to indicate starting point or discount structure places the appellate court in a difficult position – Whether only a limited guilty plea discount applies where the offender was caught red-handed or only pleaded after his cautioned statement was admitted – Whether a discount may be allowed where a sentence is greatly enhanced on review and whether this extends to substitution of consecutive for concurrent sentences – Held: application allowed; concurrent sentences wrong in principle because the offences were not part of the same transaction – Proper starting points are 3 years for domestic burglary and 2.5 years for non-domestic burglary – Plea discount limited; further discount allowed for enhancement on review – Totality: 3 years achieved by 2 years on the 1st count (domestic burglary) and 6 months on each of the 2nd and 3rd counts (non-domestic burglary), all consecutive – Sentencing math: Starting points 3 years (domestic) and 2.5 years (non-domestic); limited guilty plea discount (caught red-handed on 1st count; admission-led pleas on 2nd and 3rd); further discount for enhancement on review; final total 3 years replacing original 15 months concurrent – Original sentences set aside; substituted sentences as above.
Legal issues: Concurrent vs consecutive sentences for multiple burglary offences · Correct starting point for individual burglary sentences · Discounts for guilty plea and enhancement on review · Totality of sentence on review
Outcome: Attorney General's application for review allowed; original concurrent sentences of 15 months set aside and substituted with 2 years on the 1st count and 6 months on each of the 2nd and 3rd counts, to run consecutively, for a total of 3 years' imprisonment.
Cited by 26 cases