Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000016/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 March 1994 before Silke, V.-P., Litton and Bokhary, JJ.A..
Criminal law – sentencing – review under s.81A Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221 – forged credit cards – possession with intent to defraud (old s.76(2), Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200) – possession of forged credit cards (new s.75(1), Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200) – attempted obtaining property by deception (s.17(1), Theft Ordinance) – whether sentences were wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate – whether sentencing for credit card fraud should be equated with sentencing for forged currency – credit card fraud treated as serious and prevalent offence eroding the credit card system and damaging Hong Kong's international standing – approach of starting with an overall sentence incorrect; judge should fix individual sentences and then consider totality – discount to be allowed for guilty plea – 1st respondent committed further offence while on bail – 1st respondent had previous record though not for similar offences – 2nd respondent had entirely clear record and family circumstances – 1st respondent's sentences increased from 9 months and 12 months consecutive (totality 21 months) to 1 year and 3 years consecutive (totality 4 years) – 2nd respondent's sentences increased from 6 months concurrent on each charge (totality 6 months) to 1 year and 2 years concurrent (totality 2 years) – review application allowed to the extent indicated.
Legal issues: Equating credit card fraud sentencing with forged currency offences · Adequacy of sentences on 1st respondent (Chan Piu Sang) · Adequacy of sentences on 2nd respondent (Chung Kwok On)
Outcome: Review application by the Attorney General allowed; sentences on both respondents increased as manifestly inadequate.
Cited by 1 case