The Queen v. Ga Ly Bae

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 316
(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

and

GA LY BAE

________________

Coram: Hon. Yang, Silke, JJ.A. & Barnes, J.

Date of hearing: 13th January, 1987.

Date of delivery of judgment: 13th January, 1987.

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Yang, J .A.:

1. This is the Applicant's application for leave to appeal, against his conviction and sentence for arson.

2. The first question we have to decide is whether to grant him leave to apply out of time. This is his fourth appearance in this Court, the previous adjournments having been necessitated by certain difficulties arising from his legal representation - a matter which is not necessary for us to go into today. In all the circumstances it would seem a little artificial to refuse him leave at this late stage, we therefore grant him leave to apply out of time.

3. In the light of what he has said this morning, and of what Mr. Aiken has said to us as amicus curiae, we are not convinced that there is anything which would justify our interference with either the conviction or the sentence in any way.

4. Mr. Aiken, in his very helpful submission on the questions as to (1) whether the Applicant was fit to plead and understood the proceedings in the court below, (2) whether he was able to defend himself at the trial, and (3) whether he was capable of pursuing this appeal, suggests, on the basis of the psychiatric reports before us, that he was. We agree.

5. On the question of sentence, Mr. Aiken submits that there is nothing wrong in principle with the sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed upon him, and that, as the Applicant will be serving his sentence in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre it is to his advantage to serve a determinate sentence rather than a period of detention under S.45 of the Mental Health Ordinance. We also agree.

6. The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. He was a tenant of a bed space in an apartment block. After some dispute with his landlord he moved out but kept the keys to the premises. He then returned and set fire to his bed. Fortunately there was no greater damage than the burning of the bed which he had occupied. It was for this offence that he was arrested and subsequently convicted.

7. We see no merits in the application. We would therefore dismiss the application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

8. Finally we would like to record our gratitude to Mr. Aiken for his assistance.

Applicant in person

N. Aiken Esq. as amicus curiae

A. Hodge Esq. for Crown