Cheng Yuen-mo Alias Cheng Kin v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 143/1972 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The appellant in this case is a man of 31 years and has what may be taken for purposes of these proceedings to be unblemished record. He appeals from a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the offence of theft committed when he stole a sum of $5,000 entrusted to him by his employer for the purpose of depositing the sum in the employer's bank. The appellant was employed as a coolie in a rice shop at a salary of $600 a month and was regularly instructed to receive large sums on behalf of his
|
CACC000143/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 143 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Leonard J. in Court. Date of Judgment: 18th April, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant in this case is a man of 31 years and has what may be taken for purposes of these proceedings to be unblemished record. He appeals from a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the offence of theft committed when he stole a sum of $5,000 entrusted to him by his employer for the purpose of depositing the sum in the employer's bank. The appellant was employed as a coolie in a rice shop at a salary of $600 a month and was regularly instructed to receive large sums on behalf of his employer and to place them to the credit of the employer's account. He was thus frequently placed in a position of considerable temptation while enjoying a salary which while not inadequate could not be said to be over-generous. He entered Hong Kong illegally in 1962 leaving his wife and children in China. He assures me that he sends regular sums to China and that the reason he cannot prove that he has sent a large part of the amount stolen to China was because he had lost all his documents while seeking to evade the attention of the police who were seeking him in connection with this theft. The learned Magistrate was minded to suspend the sentence of imprisonment which he imposed in this case but apparently regarded himself as prevented from so doing by a passage in 1969 Criminal Law Review at page 237. The passage reads:
This case can fall only within the final clause of passage as amounting to a serious breach of trust. The cases cited in support of that clause, however, relate to people in a very different position to that enjoyed by the appellant before his arrest. They concerned bank clerks and cashiers rather than coolies who from time to time are entrusted with cash for the employers. In all the circumstances of the case I think the sentence which was imposed might properly have been suspended and consider this appeal may be allowed to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment imposed in the Court below shall be suspended for a period of 2 years.
18th April, 1972. Representation: Appellant in person. Niamatullah for Respondent. Oral jurdgment reduced into writing. |