HKSAR v. Lee Tai Ching
Read the full judgment text of CACC 463/1997 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 April 1998 before Power, V.-P., Leong and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A..
Criminal law – handling stolen goods – sentencing – late guilty plea – discount – leave to appeal – applicant pleaded guilty on second day of trial after co-defendant offered evidence – judge gave slightly more than 20% discount from starting point of 3.5 years – applicant argued insufficient discount – Court of Appeal held no error in judge's approach – application dismissed.
Legal issues: Discount for late guilty plea
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
|
CACC000463/1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL 1997, No.463
------------------------------- Coram: Power, V.-P., Leong and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A. Date of Hearing: 8 April 1998 Date of Judgment: 8 April 1998 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. On 29th July 1997, this Applicant pleaded guilty before Judge Chua in the District Court to three counts of handling stolen goods and was sentenced on each offence to 32 months' imprisonment. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He now seeks leave to appeal against sentence. 2. The offences all related to the handling of stolen light goods vehicles. The three vehicles were stolen between August 1996 and January 1997. The Applicant (D2 at trial) appeared on the same indictment as D1 who was charged with the thefts. On the first day of trial, D2 pleaded not guilty but, on the following day, changed his pleas to guilty. 3. The facts were straightforward. D1 took the vehicles that he had stolen to D2's yard in Yuen Long. The owner of the last vehicle stolen personally searched an area of Yuen Long to see if he could find his vehicle. In due course, he managed to spot this in D2's yard and he informed the police. 4. On arrest D2, aged 61 and of previous good character, said that the vehicles were to be sold in the Philippines. He gave to the police a document which bore the name and identity card number of D1. It was this lead which enabled police to trace the thief. 5. In passing sentence, the judge took into account the following matters when deciding what discount to give for this plea of guilty, and she said:
6. The judge went on to reject the explanations put forward for the late plea, and stated that it was her belief that the plea had been brought about because of the additional evidence which had been supplied to the defence in the form of a statement from D1. 7. The judge then went on to take a starting point of 31/2 years' imprisonment. No complaint is made about that. The sentence that she eventually imposed gave slightly more than the 20% discount from the starting point. 8. The grounds of appeal complain that insufficient discount was given for this late plea. Mr. Wong has also asked us to bear in mind the assistance given by D2 on his arrest when he made it possible for police to find D1. This information, we are satisfied, was given at a time when D2 was seeking to extricate himself from blame. He was telling the story of how he came to be in possession of the vehicles in the first place and, in doing so, he was attempting to avoid any suggestion of criminality. The only person that he was trying to help was himself. 9. We do not think that the judge erred in her approach to sentence, or in the extent to which she gave credit for these pleas. 10. In those circumstances, this application must be dismissed.
Representation: Mr. A.A. Bruce, S.C. & Mr. Man Tak-ho for D.P.P./Respondent Mr. Philip Wong instructed by D.L.A. for Applicant. |