HKSAR v. Tungalag, Bayarsaikhan
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 302/2011 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 May 2011.
1. This is an appeal against sentences totalling 7 months. Six months was imposed for theft, 1 month consecutively for breach of condition of stay. The theft involved the appellant taking five pairs of sunglasses from a shop in Tsim Sha Tsui and putting them inside his handbag. The sunglasses were valued at HK$10,965. The handbag had been lined with aluminium foil which could shield anti-theft tags from the radar of the anti-theft system installed in such a shop.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCMA302/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 302/2011 (ON APPEAL FROM KCCC NO. 1223 OF 2011) ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________ Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Line in Court Date of Hearing: 27 May 2011 Date of Judgment: 27 May 2011 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.This is an appeal against sentences totalling 7 months. Six months was imposed for theft, 1 month consecutively for breach of condition of stay. The theft involved the appellant taking five pairs of sunglasses from a shop in Tsim Sha Tsui and putting them inside his handbag. The sunglasses were valued at HK$10,965. The handbag had been lined with aluminium foil which could shield anti-theft tags from the radar of the anti-theft system installed in such a shop. 2.The Appellant, who is Mongolian, is a 33-year-old man. He has a previous criminal conviction of theft in September of 2010. He arrived on a visa that allowed him to stay for 14 days and he had overstayed in Hong Kong for more than five months when he was caught stealing. He pleaded guilty. 3.The magistrate took a 9-month starting point for the theft. In my view, he was quite entitled to take such a starting point because the facts reveal deliberate premeditated stealing. It is very far from what one would normally characterise as a shoplifting case. There is nothing wrong with the 1-month sentence for the breach of condition of stay. 4.There is only one matter that the Appellant urges upon me today which is that others told him, in custody, that for similar cases, people have received lesser sentences and that he should appeal. I am sure that they are right in that there are cases of theft from shops which have attracted lesser sentences but they will not have had the aggravations that this case had which indicate professional stealing. For such professional stealing from shops, a sentence of 6 months on a plea of guilty is perfectly correct. 5.I agree with the sentence passed by the magistrate and hence I dismiss the appeal.
Ms Rosaline Leung, Senior Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant, in person | |||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case