Fung Hoi Yee v. The Queen

CACC000224/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 224 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 18th May, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment consecutive on two charges of theft. The Appellant pleaded guilty to stealing two motor cars and asked that five offences of taking motor vehicles without authority be taken into consideration.

2. The circumstances are that the Appellant is apparently the owner of a garage. He says that he stole the first vehicle and intended to use that vehicle from time to time as a source of supply for spare parts. The second vehicle he took for his own use because he was fond of driving. The five vehicles which he took without authority, a part from the two stolen vehicles, were apparently driven by him and then abandoned.

3. It is suggested that the learned magistrate failed to consider other possible sentences but, with respect, I am unable to agree with that submission because the learned magistrate expressly said that he felt "obliged" to sentence the Appellant to a total of three years' imprisonment. It is quite obvious that he considered very carefully whether or not some other sentence was appropriate. He referred expressly to a number of matters which he thought were worthy of being weighed in the balance, the persistence, the skill and the dishonesty involved in these offences, the considerable loss to the persons whose vehicles were taken, and, finally, he suggested that it required no imagination to envisage what would have happened had the Appellant been involved in an accident because he could not possibly have been insured to drive any of these vehicles. The Appellant, as I say, is a garage proprietor, and offences of this kind (happily not as common in Hong Kong as in other parts of the world) are nevertheless very difficult to bring home to those who are responsible. By reason of his occupation it was specially easy for the Appellant to hide the fact of his offences. In my view, the sentences of imprisonment were entirely justified.

4. My only doubt has been as to this period of disqualification, which was for six years. Assuming that the Appellant is of good behaviour he will be released from prison after two years and there will then be four years more of the period of disqualification. I think perhaps there is a measure of speculation in the finding of the learned magistrate that the Appellant was not insured. I would agree that it is very far from certain that he was, but I think it right to assume for the purposes of this case that he was insured by virtue of some policy which he himself held - possibly for the purposes of his business. Therefore I think it proper to reduce the period of disqualification from six years to four years.

5. Save to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

18th May, 1972.

Representation: