R. v. Choi Chi Ho

CACC000161A/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 161
(Criminal)

________________

________________

Coram: Litton, V.-P., Bokhary and Mayo, JJ.A. in Court

Date of hearing: 22 April 1997

Date of judgment: 22 April 1997

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Bokhary, J.A.:

1. This applicant is a man in his late 20's. The charges which he faced spanned the period from early 1994 to early 1995. His trial took place before His Honour Judge Bailey in the District Court early last year. He was convicted on February 9 that year. And he was sentenced on the 23rd of that month.

2. Then he sought leave to appeal against conviction only. Another division of this Court refused him leave to do so. That was on October 4 last year.

3. Eleven days later, on the 15th of that month, he lodged the application now before us. It is an application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time.

4. The eight charges which he faced, and of which he was convicted, are: four of lending money at an excessive rate of interest (under charges 1 to 4); one of claiming to be a member of a triad society (under charge 5); one of inviting a person to become a member of a triad society (under charge 6); and two of blackmail (under charges 7 & 8).

5. On those charges, the judge imposed these prison terms: four months on charge 1; six months on charge 2; nine months on charge 3; one year on charge 4; one year on charge 5; one year on charge 6; 3½ years on charge 7; and four years on charge 8.

6. The sentences on all the charges apart from charge 6 were made concurrent to each other but consecutive to the one on charge 6. And that resulted in a total of five years' imprisonment.

7. It is a case of the applicant lending a man money at rates of interest which in one instance ran beyond 600%; of his telling the borrower that he was a triad member; of his trying to recruit the borrower as one; and of his threatening the safety of the borrower and the borrower's family if repayment was not made. It is difficult, we realise, to call it "repayment" having regard to the extortionate rate of interest; but let that pass.

8. In seeking leave to appeal against sentence and an extension for that purpose, the applicant speaks of his remorse and of hardship to himself and to his family. He asserts that his sentence is too heavy, and refers to how other prisoners have been sentenced. He talks about his work done in the prison hospital.

9. He seeks to compare his own sentence with that passed on a co-accused. He alleges bias on the part of the judge. He talks about discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, although one would have thought that that goes to conviction rather than to sentence. He says that nobody was actually hurt and the flat in which the borrower and his family lives was not actually set on fire as threatened. He says he realises that he was wrong. He should also realise that if the flat had actually been set on fire, he would have faced other charges as well.

10. The long and short of it is this: he has not put forward any reason why he should be given an extension. And he has not said anything which would cause us to think that even if he got an extension, he would have any real prospect of a reduction of sentence.

11. His application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time is therefore dismissed.

Representation:

CHOI Chi-ho, applicant in person

Mr Kevin P Zervos (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the respondent