HKSAR v. Bikramjit Singh and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACC 109/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 October 2019.
1. On 19 March 2019, the applicants pleaded guilty to the following charges of theft before Deputy District Judge K H Cheang (the judge):
|
CACC 109/2019 [2019] HKCA 1206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 109 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 630 OF 2018) ________________ BETWEEN
________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Introduction 1.On 19 March 2019, the applicants pleaded guilty to the following charges of theft before Deputy District Judge K H Cheang (the judge):
2.On 7 May 2019, the 1st Applicant applied for an extension of time to give notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence. On 4 April 2019, the 2nd Applicant filed a Notice of Application for leave to appeal against sentence. 3.The facts admitted by both applicants revealed that they had used a credit card belonging to another person for making multiple purchases within a span of 12 hours on 25 February 2018. The goods obtained included iPhones, supermarket stuff and wine. Other than charges 8, 12 and 13 which were committed by the 2nd Applicant alone, the two applicants admitted that they had jointly committed the other offences. The total value of the goods obtained in relation to the joint charges was about HK$88,000 whereas the 2nd Applicant obtained goods valued at about HK$24,000 for charges 8, 12 and 13. In respect of the credit card, it was a genuine card with a credit limit of HK$1 million found to have been lost after the card owner had been notified of the above purchases. The Applicants’ Background and the Judge’s Reasons for Sentence 4.Both applicants were Form 8 holders at the time of the offences. The 1st Applicant has got one previous conviction of theft in December 2017 in respect of which he was fined HK$1,000. The 2nd Applicant has got two previous convictions, one of breach of condition of stay and the other possession of dangerous drugs for which he was respectively sentenced to a suspended term of 4 weeks’ imprisonment in 2013 and a fine of HK$6,000 in 2017. 5.In sentencing, after considering the relevant authorities, the judge adopted a starting point of 3 years for each of the charges and reduced it to 2 years to take account of the guilty pleas. As the amounts involved and the number of charges were not identical, for the 1st Applicant, the judge ordered that 1 month’s imprisonment in each of charges 2-4 was to run consecutively to the 2-year term for charge 15, making a total of 2 years and 3 months. For the 2nd Applicant, he ordered that 1 month’s imprisonment in each of charges 2 to 5 was to run consecutively to the 2-year term for charge 15, making a total of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Grounds of Appeal and the 1st Applicant’s Grounds for Making the Application Out of Time 6.For the 1st Applicant, he explained that he did not make his application within time because he had to find some cases to support his application. In respect of the grounds of appeal, he claimed that it was his first offence and that he was only recruited by the 2nd Applicant to help carrying the goods. 7.For the 2nd Applicant, he merely stated that his wife was in poor health and was waiting for his company. He also mentioned about having a young baby. Consideration 8.In my view, no criticism could be mounted against the judge for adopting a starting point of 3 years for each charge which was a starting point generally in line with the relevant authorities. In fact, the starting point might be regarded as a lenient one given that the potential loss was large in the present case as the credit card had a limit of HK$1 million. 9.The final terms of 2 years and 3 months for the 1st Applicant and 2 years and 4 months for the 2nd Applicant were also appropriate since they had respectively admitted committing 11 and 14 charges involving HK$88,000 and HK$113,000. In this connection, it should be noted that although both applicants were Form 8 holders, the judge did not enhance the sentence which enhancement, if ordered, would have been justified given the previous offending of both applicants while awaiting the processing of their claims. 10.In short, I do not consider the reason put forth by the 1st Applicant for the delay to be a good reason. Insofar as his grounds of appeal are concerned, I do not consider them to be reasonably arguable. 11.In respect of the 2nd Applicant, again, the grounds advanced are not, in my view, reasonably arguable. Conclusion 12.For the above reasons, I refuse the 1st Applicant’s application made out of time for leave to appeal against sentence. I also refuse the 2nd Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence. 13.I now remind both applicants of their right to renew the applications before the Court of Appeal but I warn them that should they do so, and should the Court of Appeal find no merit for the renewal of the applications, the Court of Appeal might order loss of time which the applicants have spent in custody pending their appeals.
Ms Ranee Jhamatmal Khubchandani, SPP (Ag) of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent The 1st Applicant appeared in person The 2nd Applicant appeared in person |