The Queen v. Chiu Po

CACC001116/1982

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

____________

Coram: Li, Cons & Silke, JJ.A.

Date: 7th April 1983

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Silke, J.A.:

1. The applicant, CHIU Po, seeks leave to appeal against his conviction in relation to the sixteenth charge in the multi-charge indictment. One of going equipped for stealing - the equipment being two crowbars. He had pleaded guilty to two other burglary charges on the indictment.

2. The evidence was that upon his arrest on the 18th May 1982 he was found to be in possession of these two crowbars by the arresting officer.

3. He had suggested, in his grounds of appeal, that a cautioned statement was not produced. That is incorrect. It was and in it he had attempted to say that those crowbars were those of his co-defendant. Upon his immediate arrest he gave another explanation saying that he bought them to renovate his house.

4. The trial judge, in the light of these two conflicting explanations and the nature of the objects which were found upon the applicant, found him guilty of the charge and there was nothing wrong at all in his so doing.

5. On the aspect of his conviction he has addressed us in person. In relation to his application for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him he has had the benefit of Mr. Ramanathan to put his case for him.

6. The trial judge imposed sentences in respect of the burglary charge of eighteen months on each consecutive to each other and with a further period of imprisonment of one year on the going equipped for stealing, also consecutive - thus reaching a totality of four years.

7. It has been urged upon us by Mr. Ramanathan that we should, as I understand, view this as almost but not quite the equivalent of a single expedition - the first burglary being on the 4th March, the second on the 7th April and the arrest on the 18th May - all in 1982. This is not a submission with which we are in sympathy.

8. It is clear that the trial judge approached the sentences on the basis of totality imposing the individual sentences in order to achieve the total of four years. We accept that had the going equipped charge stood by itself and had it been heard in the Magistrates Court, as would have been normal in such circumstances, perhaps a year might have been excessive.

9. But, as we have said, the trial judge approached the matter on the basis of totality taking into consideration the pleas of guilty to the first and second charges, the amount of property taken and the lack of recovery of that property. We see nothing wrong in the totality imposed. Indeed, Mr. Ramanathan found some difficulty in suggesting that the totality of itself was in any way wrong or outside the normal tariffs.

10. The application for leave to appeal is therefore refused. There will be a direction as to loss of time.

11. We do not think either the application for leave to appeal against conviction or the application for leave to appeal against sentence to have merit. There will be a direction as to loss of time of sixty days - that is sixty days of the period between the time the application was lodged and today will not count towards sentence.

Representation:

K. Ramanathan, Esq. assigned by D.L.A. for the applicant.

J. O'Grady, Esq. for Crown/Respondent.