Read the full judgment text of CACC 000338/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 May 2008 before Yeung JA and McMahon J.
Criminal law – burglary – sentencing – appeal against sentence – starting point – consecutive sentences – guilty plea discount – professional burglar – multiple offences – non-domestic premises. The appellant pleaded guilty in two separate District Court cases (DCCC 682/2007 and DCCC 538/2007) to a total of five charges: three counts of burglary in one case, and one count of burglary and one count of attempted burglary in the other. The first set of offences involved breaking into three adjacent premises in Mongkok on 18 January 2007, stealing about $130,000 worth of dried food and valuables after breaking through a common wall. The second involved breaking into an empty unit in North Point on 12 May 2007 to access a watch shop next door, which was foiled. Whether the total sentence of 40 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive – held, no, the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. Whether the sentences in the two cases should run at least partly concurrent – held, no, fully consecutive sentences were appropriate where offences were committed on different dates, in different premises, against different victims. The proper starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises is 30 months (R v Wong Man unrep CACC 372/1992), with aggravating factors including careful planning and use of equipment, targeting of substantial premises with substantial property stolen, status as a professional burglar, prior dishonesty-related convictions, and multiple offences (citing AG v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215 on consecutive sentences for offences on different dates against different victims, AG v Cheung Yui-man unrep CAAR 16/1985, R v Ko Chi Yau unrep CACC 640/1983, and HKSAR v Lui Cho Yiu CACC 81/2004). The judge adopted 30 months per charge, reduced by one-third for guilty pleas to 20 months per charge, with concurrent sentences within each case and consecutive sentences between cases, yielding a total of 40 months. The total effective starting point of 5 years was justified. Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether the total sentence of 40 months for five burglary/attempted burglary counts was manifestly excessive · Whether the sentences in the two cases should be partly concurrent rather than fully consecutive
Outcome: Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases · Cites 6 cases