R. v. Tang Hing Wong
Read the full judgment text of CACC 476/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 February 1995 before Power VP, Macdougall VP.
Criminal law – sentencing – theft of motor vehicles – application to reduce sentence – whether failure of prosecuting authorities to inform sentencing judge of accused's police co-operation warranted reduction of sentence – discount for guilty plea – discount where offender already serving sentence for related offence – deterrence for car theft. Applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of theft of a Lexus motor vehicle and a Daihatsu Applause sedan. The Deputy Judge started at three years' imprisonment for each offence, reduced each by twelve months for the guilty pleas, and granted a further twelve-months' discount overall because the applicant was already serving a five-year sentence for a robbery committed at a very close time, producing 18 months on the first charge and 6 months consecutive on the second, an overall sentence of two years' imprisonment. The applicant complained that the police had undertaken to inform the court of his co-operation leading to the arrest of an accomplice, but that the prosecution had not done so, and that he was denied the benefit of a discount for that assistance. The Court of Appeal accepted that the applicant had a genuine sense of grievance, but held that car theft, especially of luxury cars, had become increasingly prevalent and required deterrent sentences. Although the co-operation was not brought to the sentencing judge's attention, the overall sentence was already unduly lenient and, even taking the assistance into account, could not properly have been less than two years' imprisonment. The Court therefore refused the application and did not reduce the sentences.
Legal issues: Whether overall sentence of two years' imprisonment for two thefts of motor vehicles was excessive and should be reduced to reflect police co-operation
Outcome: Application for reduction of sentence refused; the Court of Appeal found the overall sentence of two years' imprisonment was not wrong and was already unduly lenient.
Cited by 16 cases
|
CACC000476/1994 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1994, No. 476 ________________
_____________ Coram: Hon Power, V.-P. and Macdougall, V.-P. Date of hearing: 17 February 1995 Date of judgment: 17 February 1995 ____________________________________________ J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T _____________________________________________ Macdougall, V.-P.: 1. The applicant pleaded guilty to two offences of theft before Mr Candy sitting as a Deputy Judge of the District Court. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on the first charge and to six months consecutive on the second, making an overall sentence of two years' imprisonment. Both offences were thefts of a serious nature. 2. The first theft was of a 'Lexus' motor vehicle and the second of a Daihatsu Applause sedan . In passing sentence the deputy judge said that he took a starting point of three years' imprisonment for each offence and that in the light of the defendant's pleas of guilty he would reduce each sentence by twelve months. Moreover, as the defendant was already serving a sentence of five years' imprisonment for a robbery committed at a time very close to the commission of the two present offences, the deputy judge allowed a further discount of twelve months' imprisonment. 3. The applicant now complains that he had been willing to give evidence against the accomplice and that the police had promised to inform the court as to his co-operation with them. However, because of his involvement in a traffic accident, the trial of the accomplice proceeded in his absence and the applicant, was unable to testify for the prosecution. Secondly, contrary to their undertaking, the police failed to tell the deputy judge about his co-operation which led to the arrest of the accomplice. The applicant was therefore denied the benefit of a discount in sentence to give effect to that factor. 4. The truth of the matter is that both the applicant and his accomplice were to be jointly tried. It was never intended that the applicant should be used as a witness for the prosecution. Because of the applicant's inability to stand his trial on the due date because of the injury which he had sustained, the deputy judge ordered that there be separate trials. The trial of the accomplice then proceeded in the absence of the applicant. It is clear, however, that when the applicant eventually came before the court and pleaded guilty the deputy judge did not take into account the fact of the applicant's co-operation with the police which led ultimately to the arrest of the accomplice. Indeed, this was because the deputy judge had not been made aware of it by prosecuting counsel. Perhaps this was because prosecuting counsel also had not been told of it. 5. While we accept that the applicant suffers a sense of grievance on this account, we think that the overall sentence of two years' imprisonment for these offences was unduly lenient. It is a notorious fact that car theft, particularly that of luxury cars, has become increasingly prevalent. Those who commit such offences must be severely dealt with as a deterrent to others. Despite the appellant's understandable sense of grievance we have come to the conclusion that even after taking into account his assistance to the police the overall sentence could not properly have been less than two years' imprisonment. In our view, it would be wrong to reduce these sentences. We therefore refuse the application
Representation: Miss V. Hartstein for Crown Prosecutor Applicant - TANG Hing-wong - in person |