HKSAR v. BADAMKHAND BATCHULUUN
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 1506
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 18 June 2019
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (appeal From Magistrates' Court ESCC No. 262 of 2019) / High Court (court of First Instance) Hearing and Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA75/2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 18 June 2019
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (appeal From Magistrates' Court ESCC No. 262 of 2019) / High Court (court of First Instance) Hearing and Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA75/2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Principal Magistrate's sentence was materially too lenient because the appellant was not a first offender and the offence was committed in a crowded place and in the context of the appellant's Form 8 status; those factors warranted an uplift from the correct starting point and justified increasing the sentence on appeal.
Court disposition
Sentence increased on appeal
Orders
- Original sentence of 10 months imprisonment substituted with 14 months imprisonment
- Sentence to take effect immediately
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: KUAN Bak On, Franco, SPPBadamkhand Batchuluun
AppellantAmounts and remedies
- Original Sentence Months: 10
- New Sentence Months: 14
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (appeal From Magistrates' Court ESCC No. 262 of 2019) / High Court (court of First Instance) Hearing and Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed by the Principal Magistrate was manifestly too lenient
- 02
Whether the High Court may increase sentence on appeal under section 119(1)(e) of the Magistrates Ordinance
- 03
Appropriate starting point for theft offences and the proper weight of aggravating factors (crowded place, previous convictions, Form 8 status)
- 04
Effect of guilty plea reduction and procedural fairness where appellant may not have appreciated risk of an increased sentence on appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant pleaded guilty and accepted factual basis; submitted only that the sentence was too long and sought early release to care for his elderly mother; did not challenge the sentencing exercise in detail and stated he was not asserting error in the Principal Magistrate's approach but sought immediate release.
- Respondent
- Respondent submitted the sentence was too lenient, that the Principal Magistrate adopted too low a starting point and failed to properly account for aggravating factors including that the theft was committed in a crowded place, the appellant's previous convictions and his Form 8 immigration status; urged the court to increase the sentence under section 119(1)(e) of the Magistrates Ordinance and relied on HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy and HKSAR v Ali Saif to justify the uplifts.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy (Court of Appeal)
Starting point for theft for a first time offender is 12 to 15 months' imprisonment
- 02
Magistrates Ordinance s119(1)(e) (Cap.227)
Court has power to increase sentence on appeal from the Magistrates' Court
- 03
HKSAR v Ali Saif (Court of Appeal)
Enhancement for adverse immigration status (Form 8 holder) is an aggravating factor; in drug trafficking cases enhancement not less than 6 months, analogous lesser offences may justify a smaller but definite uplift
- 04
Sentencing practice applied by Principal Magistrate
Guilty plea attracts a reduction (one-third reduction applied by Principal Magistrate)
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Principal Magistrate's sentence was materially too lenient because the appellant was not a first offender and the offence was committed in a crowded place and in the context of the appellant's Form 8 status; those factors warranted an uplift from the correct starting point and justified increasing the sentence on appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the appellant appeared unaware of the possibility that his sentence could be increased on appeal and observed the importance of procedural fairness in that context
- The court observed the Form 102 contains a notice about the court's power to increase sentence on appeal
- The court commented that while enhancement for Form 8 status in trafficking cases has been stated as not less than 6 months, for less serious offences committed in crowded places an enhancement of not less than 3 months is appropriate
Court disposition
Sentence increased on appeal
- Original sentence of 10 months imprisonment substituted with 14 months imprisonment
- Sentence to take effect immediately
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 18 June 2019
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 18 June 2019
bjbj HCMA 75/2019 [2019] HKCFI 1506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM ESCC NO. 262 OF 2019) _______
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and BADAMKHAND BATCHULUUN Appellant Before: Hon S T Poon J in Court Date of Hearing: 10th May 2019 Date of Judgment: 18th June 2019 _____
J U D G M E N T _____ The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of Theft before Principal Magistrate Mr Peter Law ( the Principal Magistrate ). The Principal Magistrate took 15 months as the starting point and reduced the sentence by one-third for the guilty plea and sentenced the appellant to 10 months imprisonment. The appellant now appeals against his sentence. The appellant admitted that he has stolen from the victim a mobile phone in the MTR. The appellant is a Mongolian male. He was staying in Hong Kong by recognizance pending determination of his non-refoulement claim (a so-called Form 8 holder ). He has two previous convictions for Theft . In sentencing the appellant, the Principal Magistrate reminded himself of the guideline under HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy . He also mentioned that one of the aggravating factors of the present offence is that it was committed at a crowded place. Grounds of Appeal In his Notice of Appeal ( Form 102 ), the appellant simply relied on the standard ground that his sentence was too severe. In the Prisoner Submission attached to the Form 102, the appellant stated that he feels that his sentence is too long as he wants to go back to his country to take care of his mother, who is 96 years old and suffering from heart problems. At the hearing the appellant said he is not saying that there is anything wrong with the sentence imposed by the
Principal Magistrate. He just wants to be released as soon as possible to take care of his old mother. Respondent s submission On the other hand, Mr Kuan, who appeared for the respondent, submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the sentence should be increased. Mr Kuan submitted that the Principal Magistrate had in fact adopted too low a starting point and also ignored several aggravating factors. Mr Kuan submitted that according to Ngo Van Huy a starting point of 12 to 15 months imprisonment is appropriate for a first time offender. The sentence should be enhanced for the fact that the offence was committed at a crowded place, the appellant has previous similar records and he is a Form 8 holder. Mr Kuan urged this court to exercise its power under section 119(1)(e) of the Magistrates Ordinance to increase the sentence. He submitted that there is a notice on the Form 102 warning the appellant that the court has this power if he goes for an appeal. Discussion I agree with Mr Kuan that the sentence imposed by the Principal Magistrate is too lenient. The starting point adopted by the Principal Magistrate is on the low side as in Ngo Van Huy the range of 12 to 15 months imprisonment was expressly stated by the Court of Appeal to be applicable to a first time offender . The appellant is not. As submitted by Mr Kuan, the fact that the offence was committed at a crowded place
should also justify an increase of 3 months imprisonment from the starting point. Moreover, the sentence should be enhanced as the appellant is a Form 8 holder. In HKSAR v Ali Saif , the Court of Appeal stated that for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, the level of enhancement for this factor should not be less than 6 months. In my view, although pickpocketing is an offence less serious than trafficking in dangerous drugs, if the offence is committed at a crowded place the enhancement should not be less than 3 months. Conclusion In the premises, I am of the view that the sentence imposed by the Principal Magistrate is too lenient. Having said that however, from what I heard from the appellant at the hearing, I take the view that the appellant was not aware of the possibility that his sentence can be increased in the appeal. In the circumsta rst Instance High Court Mr KUAN Bak On, Franco, SPP, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent. The Appellant, acting in person. Contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210 [2005] 2 HKLRD 1 supra Cap. 227 supra [2018] 6 HKC PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 hV_; h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gdT%3 gdT%3 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 h>u5 h69* h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h-@d h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h69* h>u5 sdYNY=2 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h Zf h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 ujuju_j h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 vfvQ<Q h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 gdd gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 gd>u5 umumumumu h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 h>u5 gdd h>u5 h>u5 hFA[ gdl[4 gd>u5 gdl[4 ph@@@ ph@@@ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4"
accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> @xx` 9xF# 3B/XJ&| @xMq wp1w4wB 3B/X wp1w @xMq 9xF# "CPG aT\< `:WQ Sunny Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Department Of Justice Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{3DA2BE53-75E5-4A97-8530-06DEC2221620}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.