Read the full judgment text of CACC 000236/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 March 2001 before Stuart-Moore, Acting CJHC, Stock JA and Gall J.
Criminal law – burglary – non-domestic burglary – sentencing – starting point – whether three years and four months manifestly excessive for professionally planned burglary involving forced safe and theft of $422,250 – whether wrong in principle to take into account applicant's four previous convictions for burglary – Criminal Procedure – appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive or wrong in principle – Court of Appeal dismissed application for leave to appeal against sentence – starting point of two and a half years for non-domestic burglary is common but not a binding ceiling where facts justify higher – professional execution, breaking of safe, concerted action, and large sum taken justified higher starting point – sentencing for current offence and not for past offences, but persistent reoffending in similar manner aggravates gravity of offence for sentencing purposes and may justify deterrent sentence to protect public – applicant convicted of burglary of Brilliant Charm Limited premises; seen by police leaving with two plastic bags of $5 coins totalling $10,300; four cartons of coins worth $45,600 found on nearby stairway; safe forced open and $422,250 in notes and coins taken; police raid on applicant's home recovered $23,350 in notes and coins and $5,480 in plastic bags of coins – applicant had four prior burglary convictions and was described as a professional burglar who reoffended about seven months after release from prison – maximum penalty for burglary is 14 years – starting point of 3 years 4 months not manifestly excessive – following HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi (1999) 2 HKLRD 830, persistent offending of same or similar kind may aggravate sentence and increase starting point – sentence upheld – application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether the starting point of three years and four months for non-domestic burglary was manifestly excessive · Whether the starting point was wrongly increased by reference to the applicant's previous convictions
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of three years and four months' imprisonment upheld as neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
Cited by 7 cases