HKSAR v. Chan Ka Shing

Read the full judgment text of CACC 166/1998 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 9 July 1998.

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to five counts of theft and seven of obtaining property by deception before H.H. Judge Hawkes and was sentenced to a total of 2 1/2 years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against these sentences.

Case No.CACC 166/1998
Court
Court of Appeal
Date09 Jul 1998
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC000166/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 166
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
CHAN KA-SHING Applicant

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

Coram: Hon. Mayo and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A. in Court

Date of hearing: 9 July 1998

Date of delivery of judgment: 9 July 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to five counts of theft and seven of obtaining property by deception before H.H. Judge Hawkes and was sentenced to a total of 2 1/2 years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against these sentences.

2. The facts were quite simple and straight forward. The Applicant was employed by a bank in a position of trust. He stole credit cards which he had obtained from customers and he purchased items such as jewellery with the cards. It would appear from the agreed facts that the Applicant was virtually caught red handed. In his Reasons for Sentence the Judge stated that the victims had been compensated for the losses they suffered.

3. The Judge adopted a starting point of 4 years and gave the Applicant more than a 1/3 discount for his pleas.

4. In his Grounds of Appeal the Applicant claims that the Judge did not consider his family background or the information contained in the probation report which was obtained. This is not so as the Judge specifically did refer to this.

5. These were multiple offences and the Applicant abused the trust which was reposed in him by his employers. The total sentence imposed in such circumstances was a lenient sentence. This application is without merit. It is dismissed. 3 months of the time spent in custody will not count towards his sentence.

(Simon Mayo) (M. Stuart-Moore)
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr. Francis Lo, S.A.D.P.P. (Ag.) (D.P.P.) for Respondent

Chan Ka-shing, Applicant in person

HKSAR v. Chan Ka Shing [CACC 166/1998] | BabelCite