HCMA 240/2011 and 252/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2011
(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 1288/2011)
and ____________ MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2011 (ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 68/2011) ____________ BETWEEN and
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2011
(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 68/2011)
Before: Hon. Wright J
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 19 July 2011
1. On 26 March 2011 the appellant was sentenced under magistracy case number TWCC 683/2011 (HCMA 240/2011) to undergo imprisonmentfor a period of 6 months and under magistracy case number ESCC 1288/2011 (HCMA 252/2011) to undergo imprisonment for a period of8 months, the sentences to be served consecutively. The appellant appeals the sentences and, presumably, the order.
2. Both offences related to theft from shops. In TWC 683/2011, the appellant and a female accomplice stole four tins of milk powderwith a value in excess of $800 from a branch of Mannings in Tsuen Wan on 14 March 2011. He was arrested but, perhaps surprisinglyin view of his record, was released on police bail. In ESCC 1288/2011 he again stole four tins of milk powder with a value in excessof $800, this time from JUSCO in Quarry Bay. This offence occurred on 25 March 2011 whilst on bail for the offence committed 11 daysearlier.
3. The appellant has five previous convictions each of which related to theft. He has been subjected to sentences of six months imprisonmentsuspended for two years, one month imprisonment, three months imprisonment and six months imprisonment, and has been committed toDrug Addiction Treatment Centre.
4. The magistrate recognised each of these factors as well as the fact that theft from shops is a prevalent offence and that the commissionof a further offence whilst on bail is an aggravating feature.
5. In respect of each sentence he allowed a reduction of one third for the appellant’s pleas of guilty. The resulting sentences wereappropriate in my judgment for sixth and seventh identical convictions. I agree with the magistrate that, as a matter of principle,the sentences should be served consecutively to one another. That does not relieve me of considering the totality of the sentence.Although the resulting aggregate sentence is robust, I see no reason to interfere with it.
6. Each appeal is dismissed.
Ms Eva Chan, Public Prosecutor, Department of Justice, for the Respondent.
Appellant in person.