Read the full judgment text of CACC 000018/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 May 1999 before Mayo JA, Stuart-Moore JA.
Criminal law – robbery – handling stolen goods – immigration offence – sentencing – appeal – manifestly excessive sentence – consecutive sentences – discount for guilty plea. Three applicants (D2, D4 and D5) sought leave to appeal against sentence imposed in the District Court (DCCC 1193/1998) by H.H. Judge Wilson. D2 pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial; D4 and D5 pleaded guilty. All three were convicted of robbery (charge 1) in which picnickers were set upon and beaten with poles and robbed of personal possessions and money; all three were also convicted of being in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration. D5 additionally pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods (a pair of shoes) on charge 6. The Judge imposed 5 years' imprisonment on D2 for the robbery (no discount for not guilty plea) plus 15 months consecutive for the immigration offence, totalling 6 years 3 months. On D4, a starting point of 5 years was discounted by one-third for his guilty plea to 3 years 4 months, plus 15 months consecutive for the immigration offence, totalling 4 years 7 months. On D5, a starting point of 5 years was similarly discounted to 3 years 4 months, plus 2 years consecutive for the handling charge and 15 months consecutive for the immigration offence, totalling 6 years 7 months. The Court of Appeal held that no convincing reasons were advanced by D2 or D4, whose difficult personal circumstances could not weigh heavily against the gravity of the offences, and dismissed their applications. D4's application was out of time, the Court having decided to hear it de bene esse after he was advised by the Director of Legal Aid on 31 December 1998 (sentencing was on 16 December 1998) and he lodged on 21 January 1999. On D5's application, the Court accepted that the circumstances of the handling offence were much less serious than the robbery, and considered the 2-year consecutive term for handling stolen goods to be manifestly excessive. The Court allowed D5's application, treated it as the appeal, and reduced the sentence on charge 6 to 5 months' imprisonment consecutive to the other sentences, reducing D5's effective total sentence from 6 years 7 months to 5 years.
Legal issues: Whether D5's sentence for handling stolen goods was manifestly excessive
Outcome: Applications of D2 and D4 dismissed; D5's application allowed and treated as the appeal, with the sentence on charge 6 reduced from 2 years to 5 months' imprisonment consecutive, reducing the effective total from 6 years 7 months to 5 years.