HKSAR v. Yeung Wing Yiu
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1068/2001 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 December 2001.
1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of theft in September 1999 and he was made the subject of a community service order requiring him to perform unpaid work of 160 hours.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCMA001068/2001 HCMA 1068/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEALS NO. 1068 OF 2001 (ON APPEALS FROM SKCC 2334/1999) ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Jackson J in Court Date of Hearing: 14 December 2001 Date of Judgment: 14 December 2001 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.The appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of theft in September 1999 and he was made the subject of a community service order requiring him to perform unpaid work of 160 hours. 2.Having completed some 39 hours and 30 minutes of that order he was brought back before the magistrate for failing to comply with certain conditions and the order was revoked. 3.The magistrate then proceeded in September of this year to sentence the appellant afresh for the offence of theft and in his reasons he said this:
4.Mr Hung on behalf of the appellant complains that that sentence was excessive. 5.The summary of facts of the offence of theft to which the appellant pleaded guilty reads as follows:
6.With respect to the learned magistrate I am unable to ascertain precisely what starting point in sentence he accepted in this case, but it would appear to be about 13 months. 7.In my view, given the nature of the offence and the fact that it was committed over two years ago, that sentence was manifestly excessive. 8.The appropriate sentence would have been one of 6 months imprisonment reduced to 4 months by reason of the appellant's plea of guilty and to 3 months by reason of the community service completed. 9.I allow this appeal to the extent that I substitute a term of 3 months imprisonment for the term of 7 months imposed by the learned magistrate.
Representation: Mr Daniel Ozorio, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent Mr Hung Hing Shek, Andy, instructed by DLA, for the Appellant |
Other judgments that cite this case