HKSAR v. Tang Sin Tung
Read the full judgment text of CACC 522/2004 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 July 2005.
1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence, in respect of a plea of guilty before Judge Longley in the District Court, to a charge of handling stolen goods. The charge was that on that 13 June 2004 the applicant and two others handled a slit lamp, and 881 pairs of glasses frames, knowing or believing them to be stolen. These items were found in premises in which the applicant lived and, under caution, the applicant said that the items had been given to him by a friend who h
|
CACC 522/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2004 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 801 OF 2004) ---------------------- BETWEEN
-------------------- Before : Hon Stock JA, Gall J and Lugar-Mawson J in Court Dates of Hearing : 22 July 2005 Date of Judgment : 22 July 2005 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court) : 1.This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence, in respect of a plea of guilty before Judge Longley in the District Court, to a charge of handling stolen goods. The charge was that on that 13 June 2004 the applicant and two others handled a slit lamp, and 881 pairs of glasses frames, knowing or believing them to be stolen. These items were found in premises in which the applicant lived and, under caution, the applicant said that the items had been given to him by a friend who had told him that the properties were stolen and had asked him whether he could find someone to purchase them. He said that he intended to sell the items for $30,000 and would earn, after giving $18,000 to his friend, a profit of $12,000. The value of the stolen properties was $125,000. 2.The judge took a starting point of three years’ imprisonment and, giving the usual discount for the plea of guilty, sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment and ordered that term to run consecutively to the term of two and a half years’ imprisonment that had already been imposed for the attempted burglary which was the subject of an earlier application today. The judge noted that the applicant has a bad criminal record including a number of offences for burglary; and particularly that this offence of handling stolen property was committed whilst the applicant was awaiting trial on the attempted burglary charge. 3.The applicant is unrepresented in relation to this application. In his grounds of appeal, he says that the total sentence is too heavy and also that if the application (which we have now heard) in relation to the attempted burglary conviction were to succeed, the order for a consecutive sentence would have to fall away. He has addressed us orally today saying this was his first offence. It is his first offence for handling stolen goods but it is far from his first offence of dishonesty. He has a criminal record which shows him to be a thoroughly dishonest person, and it is an aggravating feature that he committed this offence whilst awaiting trial for another offence of dishonesty. 4.The sentence of two years’ imprisonment was not itself at all too heavy. The application for leave in relation to the attempted burglary has been dismissed, so the sentence for that stands; and we fully endorse the judge’s decision to order the sentence for handling stolen goods to run wholly consecutively to the sentence for the attempted burglary. 5.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Ms Mary Sin, SADPP of the Department of Justice for the Respondent The Applicant, TANG SIN TUNG 鄧善通, in person |