Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000001/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 16 March 2004 before Stuart-Moore VP, Stock JA, Yeung JA.
Criminal law – sentencing review – s.81A Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) – theft contrary to s.9 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap 210) – false accounting contrary to s.19(1)(a) of the Theft Ordinance (Cap 210) – white-collar dishonesty – breach of trust – chairman and director of listed company – applicant was chairman of Fairyoung Holdings and of Pacific Ports Company Limited and director of its wholly-owned subsidiary Fairyoung Port Investments Limited – caused three cheques totalling approximately HK$81 million to be drawn on subsidiary's account without the knowledge or consent of co-directors to settle margin-trading debts of his two private companies – falsified payment vouchers and backdated an agreement to portray payments as a deposit for a warehouse investment in Xiamen – application of R v Barrick [1985] 81 Cr App R 78 – nine factors including quality of trust reposed, period of offending, use of money, effect on victim, impact on public confidence – R v Trevor Clark [1998] 2 Cr App R 137 updated guideline tariffs approved in HKSAR v Wong Kay Din, CAAR 7/1998 – whether six-year concurrent total was manifestly inadequate for theft of about HK$81 million involving highest level of trust and aggravated by false accounting – court held sentence manifestly inadequate – starting point of nine years appropriate – whether unreasonable prosecution delay of just under two and a half years entitled to discount – one year reduction for delay with further six months reduction because increase was substantial – application allowed – sentence on count 3 quashed and seven and a half years' imprisonment substituted, concurrent with other sentences – eight-year director disqualification undisturbed.
Legal issues: Whether the sentence of six years' imprisonment for theft of approximately HK$81 million was manifestly inadequate · Weight to be given to prosecution delay in reducing the otherwise appropriate sentence
Outcome: Application for review of sentence allowed; sentence on count 3 increased from six years to seven and a half years' imprisonment, running concurrently with the other sentences.
Cited by 13 cases · Cites 2 cases