IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 712 OF 1996
Coram : Hon Stock, J. in Court
Date of hearing : 14 August 1996
Date of judgment : 14 August 1996
J U D G M E N T
1. These were very serious offences of their kind. The appellant was part of a large gang that entered a club with pipes and other weaponsand caused damage to the premises. In the course of their criminal escapade, the gang robbed a customer of his Rolex watch. The watchwas later given to the appellant and he kept it. It was later pawned by someone else for $13,000. Accordingly, the appellant wascharged with criminal damage, and with handling stolen property.
2. The magistrate imposed a term of nine months imprisonment on each charge and ordered them to run consecutively. He said that he wouldbut for the totality principle have imposed the term of 12 months imprisonment, but reduced the sentence for each to nine monthsimprisonment because he felt that the total of two years was excessive.
3. This is, with respect, not the proper application of the principle. The future reader of this appellant’s record will have no ideathat the nine months sentence does not reflect the term which the sentencer felt appropriate for each offence.
4. These were, as I say, very serious offences of their kind and this appellant has record of offences of violence and dishonesty. Heseeks today to pray in aid the fact that he has an eleven month old son who is in need of his fathering. That is not a matter thatcan be placed at the door of this court.
5. Nobody could quarrel for one moment with a 12 month term for each offence taking into account the plea of guilty. So that this appellant’srecord would reflect the true gravity of each offence, I substitute a term of 12 months imprisonment in respect of each. I orderthat six months on the handling charge shall run consecutively to the 12 months for the criminal damage charge and six months concurrently,making a total of 18 months. That is the same total as imposed by the magistrate.
6. The appellant can consider himself fortunate that I have not increased his sentences. This appeal against sentence was impertinent.
Miss J. Mahomed, S.C.C., for Crown
Appellant Wei Yung Chun, in person