HKSAR v. Cheuk Oi Ming

CACC000214A/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 214
(Criminal)

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

Coram: Hon Nazareth Atg CJHC, Mayo and Stuart Moore JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 26 January 1999

Date of Judgment: 26 January 1999

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Nazareth Atg CJHC (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant, Cheuk Oi-ming, was convicted on 1 April 1998 of one charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence contrary to s.25(1) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) on his own plea of guilty before Her Honour Judge Toh. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. In view of the stance adopted Mr Eddie Sean for the Department of Justice, it is not necessary to go into all the facts.

2. The judge took a starting point of five years. She referred to the applicant's bad record and continued:

"The only mitigation is your plea and confession to the police, and the sentence I give you must reflect the abhorrence of society for what you have done and as in the case of the 1st defendant, the sentence I give you is aimed at protecting innocent victims and banks from such criminality.

Similarly as to the 1st defendant, your role in this scheme is also a very important one. I feel in this case that a starting point after trial of 5 years is appropriate in the circumstances, but because of your plea I reduce it to 4 years' imprisonment."

No point is taken by Mr Andy Hung, for the applicant, on the starting point of five years. Mr Hung relies on only one point. He says that there was a plea of guilty, plainly it was an early plea of guilty, and there was no reason to deny the applicant the usual one-third discount nor for that matter was any reason given.

3. It is now the well-established practice of this Court that where there is a timely plea, a discount of one-third is given. The reasons for that are well established. Here, there was no reason to deny the applicant the full discount.

4. Accordingly, we allow the application, grant leave, set aside the sentence and allowing a full discount of one-third, substitute a sentence of three years and four months.

Representation:

Mr Eddie Sean, Atg SADPP and Ms Sally Yam, GC (DPP) for the Respondent

Mr Andy Hung (DLA) for the Applicant