The Queen v. Chuen Chi Lam

HCMA001074/1986

BETWEEN

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date: 5 November 1986

-------------------

JUDGMENT

-------------------

1. This is an unusual case which has been presented to me very ably by Mr. Ronald Tang on behalf of CHUEN Chi-lam, who was convicted on his own plea by a magistrate of shoplifting.

2. In the early hours of the morning of 29th September, the appellant entered the Seven-Eleven Supermarket in Lockhart Road and extracted nine sheets of tissue paper from a box placed on the display shelf in the supermarket. The value of these sheets is estimated by his counsel, and I accept it since it is not disputed, at about 80 cents.

3. The explanation which has been offered to me on his behalf is that he needed to use a lavatory but did not have the money with him to pay the necessary fee and that he needed the sheets for this purpose.

4. If this had been an ordinary case of shoplifting I would have expected to find the appellant taking the whole box. As he did not, I will accept that he removed the sheets for the purpose which has been suggested.

5. This information was, apparently, not before the magistrate. If it had been, it may well be that he would have been able to take the different course, which I am about to adopt, though I entirely understand his feeling that the time had come for an immediate custodial sentence of substantial length.

6. CHUEN Chi-lam has an unfortunate record. He has, in total, 11 previous convictions, including three suspended sentences, all of which have had to be activated. However, none of these offences has been more than very petty in nature, so that the appellant has become a nuisance rather than a danger to the community.

7. I am told that after a long period, during which he did little or no work, the appellant has found a steady job, being paid an adequate wage from which he has been supporting his father. His employer is willing to take him back when he is released.

8. It would be wrong for me to interfere with the activation of the suspended sentence by the magistrate, so that that sentence of 28 days must remain.

9. In view of what I have heard this morning, I will allow the appeal against the sentence of three months' imprisonment, quash that sentence and substitute therefor one of fourteen days, since it must be made clear to him yet again that those who steal things from shops must expect to be sent to prison and, unless there are special reasons, for much longer periods than that.

10. The two sentences of 28 and 14 days will be consecutive. If the appellant has behaved himself in prison and earned the maximum remission, he will no doubt be released almost at once. I hope he will return to work, lead an honest life and not trouble the courts again.

Representation:

Mr. Ronald Tang (D.L.A.) for Appellant

Mr. S. Leung, Asst. Crown Prosecutor, for Crown