Hon Pak-yue v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 525/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences: theft and burglary. He was sentenced to twelve months for the first charge and eighteen months for the second charge, the sentences to run consecutively; in all, therefore, he would have to serve two and a half years' imprisonment.
|
CACC000525/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 525 OF 1975 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J. Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences: theft and burglary. He was sentenced to twelve months for the first charge and eighteen months for the second charge, the sentences to run consecutively; in all, therefore, he would have to serve two and a half years' imprisonment. 2. The facts of the first charge are that the appellant was seen to drain some petrol from a goods vehicle into a bottle in order to use it in his own vehicle which had stopped. It was estimated that he had stolen about a quarter of a gallon. He pleaded guilty. This offence took place on the 12th May, 1975. 3. The facts of the second offence were that the appellant, perhaps with other persons, entered certain premises and stole $370. That offence took place in July 1972. The reason that the police were able to connect the appellant with that offence was that in July 1972 the fingerprints of the appellant were found on the premises which had been burgled. The appellant pleaded guilty to this offence also. 4. The appellant is aged 28 and has a bad record. His record shows that in July 1972 he was sentenced for an attempted burglary and given eighteen months, which he had served. 5. As to the sentences, in my view the sentence of twelve months for the first offence was too high and I think that a sentence of six months should be substituted therefor. As to the second offence, I think that if that had been known to the court which sentenced the appellant in July 1972 for the attempted burglary and for which he was given eighteen months, the sentence for the two charges would not have been greater. In the circumstances, I think the sentence on the second charge should be reduced to twelve months; the two sentences are to be served consecutively, namely, the appellant will serve eighteen months and not two and a half years.
Representation: Appellant in person. Reid for crown. |