The Queen v. Chan Chi Ming

CACC000141/1992

-------------------

Coram: Fuad, V.-P. & Macdougall, J.A.

Date of Hearing: 4th August 1992

Date of Judgment: 4th August 1992

----------------------

JUDGMENT

----------------------

Fuad, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the court):

1. The applicant, Chan Chi Ming, pleaded guilty on 27th March 1992 in the District Court before Judge C.B. Chan to four charges of evading liability by deception contrary to section 18B(1) (b) of the Theft Ordinance. These were the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th Charges laid in the charge sheet. On that day, he was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment upon each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. He now seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The facts of the 2nd Charge were as follows. In August 1990 the then proprietor of a garment factory placed an advertisement in a newspaper to lease his factory. The proprietor of the factory came to an agreement with the applicant who gave a cheque which was dishonoured. When the matter was drawn to his attention, he issued another cheque which also was dishonoured.

3. The facts of the 3rd Charge were these. On 15th January 1991 the victim received a telephone call from one o?the applicant's employees who ordered some nylon bags. Two days later, again on the applicant's behalf, a further batch of nylon bags was ordered. On the next day, the victim delivered one lot of nylon bags and two days later the second lot. When he looked at the cheque he was given by the applicant's employee he noticed that the it was made out, not to his own firm but in favour of another firm altogether. The victim delivered another batch of goods to the applicant's factory and was given another cheque on 30th January 1991. When this cheque was presented it was found that the cheque had been altered with correcting fluid and so it could not be cashed. When the victim complained to the applicant's employee he was given another cheque and that too was dishonoured.

4. Regarding the 4th Charge, on 20th January, the victim received an order from the applicant's employee for some plastic bags and two days later other goods were ordered from the victim. A third order was made on 1st February. On that day when some of the orders were filled the applicant's employee gave the victim a cheque. It turned out that the date on the cheque had been altered and therefore it was not cashed on presentation. About four days later further goods were delivered by the victim and the same employee of the applicant gave the victim another cheque which was dishonoured.

5. The facts relating to the 6th Charge were that in the middle of January 1991 another employee o?the applicant placed an order with a dyeing factory. The dyed material was delivered by the victim's employee to the place designated by the applicant's employee and the victim was given a cheque for dyeing the cloth. This cheque was dishonoured.

6. All the cheques mentioned above had been signed by the applicant. The bank account upon which the cheques were drawn was closed on 9th February 1991 and the applicant was arrested on 3rd August.

7. The applicant had a number of previous convictions. The only one involving dishonesty was when he was sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment on two charges of theft from a vehicle in November 1991.

8. The judge in her Reasons for Sentence noted that the total sum involved in the cheques which were not honoured was some $69,000 and that the offences to which the applicant had pleaded guilty extended over a period for about two weeks. She took a starting point of 18 months and gave a discount for his guilty pleas.

9. The applicant, who is aged about 36, said in his grounds of appeal that the offences had not been committed deliberately. The cheques were not honoured because he had financial difficulties. He had not been fraudulent "with intent". Before us today he had mentioned his family difficulties as a result of his jail sentence.

10. It seems to us that contrary to what the applicant said in his grounds of appeal, these were deliberate and carefully executed confidence tricks. It cannot be said that the sentences imposed were too severe.

11. The application for leave to appeal against sentences is refused.

Representation:

Applicant - in person

Mr. N.C.H. Bradley (Crown Prosecutor) for the Crown/Respondent