Attorney General v. Chan So @ Chu So @ Tsui So
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 8/1976 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The respondent was convicted of three charges of burglary and one charge of going equipped for stealing. The three burglaries were committed within a short space of time and in the same district that is, at Nos. 11, 12 and 13 Headland Road, Hong Kong. All were committed at night and the charge of going equipped for stealing related to the possession of a torch and a pair of gloves in the course of the third robbery during which the respondent was overpowered by the householder. He was sentenc
|
CAAR000008/1976
-----------------
----------------- Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 11th March, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Pickering, J.A.: 1. The respondent was convicted of three charges of burglary and one charge of going equipped for stealing. The three burglaries were committed within a short space of time and in the same district that is, at Nos. 11, 12 and 13 Headland Road, Hong Kong. All were committed at night and the charge of going equipped for stealing related to the possession of a torch and a pair of gloves in the course of the third robbery during which the respondent was overpowered by the householder. He was sentenced to terms of three months' imprisonment in respect of each of the burglaries, those sentences to run consecutively, and to one month's concurrent imprisonment in respect of the charge of going equipped for stealing. The Attorney General now applies for review of those sentences upon the ground that they are manifestly inadequate. 2. The respondent was concerned as to whether or not the charges had been properly drawn against him in that he claimed that in each of the burglaries he obtained access to the premises, not by breaking in, but by means of a open window. The police, he claimed, had accused him of breaking in and it was in this respect that he doubted the accuracy of the charges. We were able to reassure him that he was not charged with breaking in but with stealing having entered the premises as a trespasser. 3. It is to be said in the respondent's favour that there was no breaking in and that there was no evidence that he was possessed of any weapon. At the same time burglary of residential premises is a very serious offence and we are constrained to agree, the more so because the respondent has 22 previous convictions 13 of them being in respect of related types of offences, that the sentences in this case were manifestly inadequate. Accordingly we set aside the consecutive sentences of three months' imprisonment in respect of each of the burglary charges and substitute therefor concurrent sentences of 18 months' imprisonment. We do not interfere with the concurrent sentence of one month's imprisonment imposed in respect of the charge of going equipped for stealing. The net result is to double the effective term of imprisonment imposed by the learned magistrate. Briggs, C.J.: 4. I agree and have nothing to add. Representation: Penlington for applicant Respondent in person. |