So Chun-sum v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 20/1972 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of burglary in the court below and asked for one similar charge to be taken into consideration. The victim of the 1st burglary had left his flat in the 3rd floor, at No.62, Queen's Road Central at 1.20 a.m. on the morning of the 12th December 1971 and had left the door open. The appellant was arrested at 1.30 a.m. with articles which he had taken from the premises. On arrest he readies admitted to the police that he
|
CACC000020/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1972 -----------------
Coram: Leonard J. in Court Date of Judgment: 23rd February, 1972 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Leonard J.: 1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of burglary in the court below and asked for one similar charge to be taken into consideration. The victim of the 1st burglary had left his flat in the 3rd floor, at No.62, Queen's Road Central at 1.20 a.m. on the morning of the 12th December 1971 and had left the door open. The appellant was arrested at 1.30 a.m. with articles which he had taken from the premises. On arrest he readies admitted to the police that he had entered another premises at 7, Staunton Street, ground floor, through the open door at 30 minutes past midnight 5 nights earlier. He asked for a third similar offence to be taken into consideration. The appellant had 23 previous convictions 2 of which were for burglary, 3 for theft or larceny. The others were, for the most part, concerned with danger us drugs. The learned magistrate sentenced the appellant to 12 months imprisonment on the 1st charge and 8 months consecutive on the 2nd charge. In view of the manner in which the 2nd charge was discovered and that the fact that it would never have been discovered had it not been for the appellant's voluntary confession I consider that the sentence on the 2nd charge should more properly run concurrently with that imposed on the 1st charge and I allow the appeal to that extent.
23rd February, 1972 Representation: Appellant in person. E. Li for Respondent. |