HKSAR v. Lam Ping Yiu
Read the full judgment text of CACC 462/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 January 2002.
1. The applicant was sentenced to a more severe sentence than is normally imposed for the burglary of non-domestic premises. After pleading guilty he was sentenced to two years and two months' imprisonment. In passing sentence the Judge gave as his reason for imposing this heavier sentence the fact that the applicant has 11 previous convictions for burglary and that it appeared that he was determined to continue committing burglaries and that the public needed protection from this.
|
CACC000462/2001 CACC 462/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2001 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 12 OF 2001) ______________
______________ Coram: Hon Mayo VP in Court Date of Hearing: 11 January 2002 Date of Judgment: 11 January 2002 _____________ J U D G M E N T _____________ 1.The applicant was sentenced to a more severe sentence than is normally imposed for the burglary of non-domestic premises. After pleading guilty he was sentenced to two years and two months' imprisonment. In passing sentence the Judge gave as his reason for imposing this heavier sentence the fact that the applicant has 11 previous convictions for burglary and that it appeared that he was determined to continue committing burglaries and that the public needed protection from this. 2.On his application the applicant stated that his co-defendants who received lesser sentences also had previous convictions for burglary. I caused inquiries to be made with the Criminal Record Bureau to ascertain whether the statement made by the Judge in passing sentence when he said the other men did not have previous convictions for burglary was correct. I am advised that the Judge's statement was correct. This being the case there is no disparity in sentence such as to justify a sense of grievance on the part of the applicant. The Judge was justified in taking into account the factors he did. The sentence imposed was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and this application is dismissed. 3.There is one further point that it is open to the applicant to proceed with this application notwithstanding the refusal of leave which has now been made. However, if he does so and the Court of Appeal finds in due course that the appeal is entirely unmeritorious it is quite likely that the court would make an order that some of the time that he has spent in custody will not count towards the sentence that he is serving.
Representation: Ms Vinci Lam, GC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Applicant in person |