Lam King-fai and Another v. The Queen
|
CACC000239/1977
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins, J.A. and Li, J. Date of Judgment: 17th May, 1977. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellants pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to steal. The first appellant was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment and the second appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. They both appeal against their sentences. 2. Both appellants were employed by the Hong Kong Telephone Company, the first appellant as a technician and the second appellant as an engineer. Between November 1975 and October 1976 the appellants agreed to steal from cash containers attached to telephone boxes a part of the monies that they contained. This they did on a daily basis. This conduct obviously was in breach of trust and it appears from the evidence that a considerable sum of money was stolen in this manner by the two appellants. Because the second appellant was in a position of some authority within the company and had been in the company's employ for a long time, the trial judge sentenced him to a longer term of imprisonment than he imposed on the first appellant, whose duties were of a comparatively humble nature. 3. We do not think that the sentence of the first appellant is wrong. This course of conduct was persisted in for a long time and he benefited from the thefts. Some $30,000 have been returned by the first appellant to the Telephone Company and the trial judge took this into consideration in passing sentence. In the event, we dismiss the first appellant's appeal. 4. The appeal of the second appellant stands on a different footing. The appellant pleaded guilty and we do not think that the trial judge adequately took into consideration his plea. It is for remark that if he had not pleaded guilty, it is difficult to imagine that he would have received a greater sentence than was imposed upon him, namely three years. 5. Since the passing of the sentence, the second appellant, through his father, has returned to the Telephone Company the sum of $30,000, and we think that notice should be taken of this since it is evident from the notes of the trial judge that had restitution been made at the time he passed sentence, he would have taken that matter into consideration. 6. There is also one other point. There is, we think, too great a disparity between the sentence passed on the first and on the second appellants. We heard evidence from a psychiatrist that the first appellant is not really a leader, he is more of a follower. We think that the two appellants were acting in concert but we do think, despite the evidence we have heard, that a major part was played by the first appellant. 7. In the event, taking all these matters into consideration the appeal of the second appellant will be allowed to the extent that the sentence be reduced to one of two years' imprisonment.
Representation: Suffiad (Peter Mo & Co.) for 1st appellant Jackson-Lipkin, Q.C. & L. Kwok (T.Y. Lee & Co.) for 2nd appellant Sharwood for crown |