Ho Chi-keung v. The Queen
|
CACC000783/1977
-----------------
----------------- Coram: Pickering, J.A., Cons & Zimmern, JJ. Date of Judgment: 6th September, 1977. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Pickering, J.A.: 1. The appellant was convicted upon his own plea of guilty of eight charges of burglary and asked for four similar charges to be taken into consideration. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment totalling four and a half years and appeals against that sentence. 2. Numerous as the offences were, there are various mitigating circumstances. The appellant is not so much a social danger as a social nuisance being a petty sneak thief engaged in petty burglaries unaccompanied by the possession of weapons or by any violence. All the premises he entered were unoccupied at the time and entry in most cases was obtained through open or unlocked doors although in three instances windows were broken. In no case was there ransacking of the premises but rather a quick appropriation of one or two not highly valuable items such as cassettes, a typewriter, a radio, a camera, a wrist watch and camera, and a stereo unit and a finger ring. In one instance two cassettes were taken from the rear seat of an unlocked car in an unlocked garage the doors of which were open. 3. Of the eight burglaries five would never have been known to the police except for the appellant's confession of the offences and none of the four cases taken into consideration would have been known to the police but for the same reason. After arrest the appellant's co-operation with the police was total both in the form of confessions of offences hitherto unsuspected and in his readiness to lead the police to premises which he had burgled but which burglaries had never been reported to the police. 4. In these circumstances, despite the number of offences and despite a record which indicates a life of petty theft, we are of the view that a sentence of four and a half years was unduly high. It was suggested to us by Miss Kao, who appeared for the appellant, that upon the authority of R. v. Brown(1) the sentences should not have been consecutive sentences. We express no view upon that submission as the case of Brown was largely concerned with paired counts involving duplicate allegations which is not so in the instant case. We consider that a total sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment would be appropriate for these offences and, seeing no necessity for a complicated exercise in arithmetic, we allow the appeal, set aside the sentences totalling four and a half years' imprisonment and impose a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment upon each charge, those sentences to run concurrently. Representation: Miss Mary Kao (D.L.A.) for appellant I.H. Polson for Crown/respondent (1) 1970 54 C.A.R. 176 |