Read the full judgment text of CACC 141/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 January 2022 before 彭偉昌, 彭寶琴.
Criminal law – sentencing – burglary – habitual offender – starting point – aggravating factors – appeal – The applicant pleaded guilty to two burglary charges in the District Court and was sentenced to a total of 26 months' imprisonment. The trial judge increased the starting point for Charge 1 from 30 months to 33 months on the basis that the applicant was a 'habitual offender' due to his 26 prior convictions, though none for burglary. For Charge 2, the starting point was increased from 30 months to 39 months due to reoffending shortly after the first burglary and involving an accomplice. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the label 'habitual offender' was questionable given the applicant had no prior burglary convictions and his last dishonest offence was in 2013. The 10% increase for Charge 1 was manifestly excessive; the appropriate starting point was 30 months. For Charge 2, a 30% increase was disproportionate; the appropriate starting point was 34.5 months. After 1/3 discount for guilty plea, the sentences were 20 months and 23 months respectively, ordered to run concurrently, resulting in a total of 23 months. Appeal allowed.
Legal issues: Sentencing for burglary - habitual offender designation and starting point · Sentencing for second burglary - starting point increase for aggravating factors
Outcome: Appeal allowed; total sentence reduced from 26 months to 23 months.
Cited by 4 cases