HKSAR v. Trejos Narvaez Waldemir
Read the full judgment text of CACC 365/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 January 2002.
1. This was a severe sentence for a burglary. However it was an exceptional case. The value of the diamonds which the applicant stole was somewhere in the region of $48,000,000. The theft involved a sophisticated and well thought out plan. It appears that the applicant came from Columbia to Hong Kong for the specific purpose of executing the plan. In all the circumstances I do not consider that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Accordingly the application is refused.
|
CACC000365/2001 CACC 365/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2001 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 669 OF 2001) ______________
______________ Coram: Hon Mayo VP in Court Date of Hearing: 3 January 2002 Date of Judgment: 3 January 2002 _____________ J U D G M E N T _____________ 1.This was a severe sentence for a burglary. However it was an exceptional case. The value of the diamonds which the applicant stole was somewhere in the region of $48,000,000. The theft involved a sophisticated and well thought out plan. It appears that the applicant came from Columbia to Hong Kong for the specific purpose of executing the plan. In all the circumstances I do not consider that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Accordingly the application is refused. 2.I would also just add that if the applicant does decide to proceed with his application notwithstanding the fact that leave has been refused he does place himself on risk that part of the time spent in custody will be ordered not to count towards the sentence he is serving.
Representation: Mr Marco Li, GC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Applicant in person |