HKSAR v. Wong Kang Sun
Read the full judgment text of CACC 265/2013 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 October 2013.
1. This is an application to the single judge for leave to appeal sentence.
Cited by 18 cases
|
CACC 265/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2013 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 449 OF 2013) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Stock VP: 1.This is an application to the single judge for leave to appeal sentence. 2.In July 2013 in the District Court the applicant pleaded guilty to a single charge of theft in the nature of pickpocketing in a market in Sham Shui Po on 24 March 2013. He had put his hand into somebody’s backpack and taken out a card holder which contained two staff cards. 3.The applicant has frankly admitted to me today, as indeed he must, that he is a recidivist. He has a long history of offences of pickpocketing but the last such offence was some 6 years ago in 2007. 4.What the judge did was to adopt a starting point for the offence of theft of 15 months’ imprisonment and then he said that:
5.Through that process, the judge arrived to an overall starting point of 27 months and reduced it by one-third to reflect the plea of guilty, arriving at a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. 6.I notice from the applicant’s criminal record that there is an offence of money laundering in 2012 but it is not a matter upon which the judge relied in aggravation and rightly so. It seems to me that the applicant has an arguable case as to the enhancement of as much as 9 months on account of his previous record given in particular the proportion of that enhancement to the initial starting point and the fact that some years had passed after the previous pickpocketing offence. 7.For these reasons, I grant the applicant leave to appeal against sentence.
Mr Andrew Li, SPP (Ag.) of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Applicant – acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case