HKSAR v. Lau Cheung Ching
Read the full judgment text of CACC 431/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 February 2003.
1 This applicant comes to this Court for leave to appeal against sentence, leave having been refused by the single judge on 12 December 2002. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court before Deputy Judge Andrew Chan on 8 August 2002 to two charges: a burglary in 1996, and remaining in Hong Kong unlawfully, the latter offence in February 2002.
|
CACC000431/2002 CACC 431/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2002 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 308 of 2002) __________________
______________ Coram: Hon Stock JA and Pang J in Court Date of Hearing: 6 February 2003 Date of Judgment: 6 February 2003 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court): 1This applicant comes to this Court for leave to appeal against sentence, leave having been refused by the single judge on 12 December 2002. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court before Deputy Judge Andrew Chan on 8 August 2002 to two charges: a burglary in 1996, and remaining in Hong Kong unlawfully, the latter offence in February 2002. 2The burglary was of domestic premises. There were no occupants in the premises at the time. The judge took a starting point of three years' imprisonment for the burglary, and sentenced the applicant to a term of two years' imprisonment for that offence. For the immigration offence, he was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment, and that term was ordered to run consecutively; a total, therefore, of three years and three months' imprisonment. 3In his original grounds of appeal, the applicant complained about not being charged in 1996 for the burglary and, further that the judge did not accept any of his mitigation. In recent home-made grounds of appeal, he says that when on the Mainland he suffered from psychiatric illness and that he sneaked into Hong Kong in 1996 because he had lost his job, and that he then earned money, which he used when he returned to the Mainland to spend upon treatment. He sneaked in again in February 2002 to earn more money; again, he says, to pay for treatment on the Mainland. There is no evidence to support that suggestion. Indeed, we have a report from the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre where he has been examined, from whom the diagnosis is of a mild anxiety neurosis, but no more. There is no psychosis, and no treatment is required. 4There is nothing in these grounds, nor any cause for us to suggest that the sentences were either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Representation: Applicant in person Mr Vincent Wong, SGC of the Department of Justice for the Respondent |