The Queen v. Chan Hing Lung and Another

HCMA000001/1988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1988

___________________

BETWEEN

_______________

Coram: de Basto, J.

Date of hearing: 25th February, 1988.

Date of delivery of judgment: 13th April, 1988.

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The 1st and 2nd appellants, aged 27 and 39 respectively were jointly charged with one count of theft. They pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment each.

2. The 1st appellant was also charged with two charges of offering an advantage to an agent - he was sentenced to two months each these sentences to run consecutively and also consecutively to the 9 months' imprisonment on the charge of theft.

3. Both appellants were employed as baggage handlers by Hong Kong Air Terminal Services Limited at Kai Tak Airport.

4. The charge of theft was that they stole about Yen 80,000 Japanese currency from luggage belonging to a person or persons unknown on board an aircraft - of Cathay Pacific Airways.

5. Both appellants had clear records.

6. I was given a schedule showing sentences imposed on Kai Tak baggage handlers for offences of theft. This schedule covers a period of six months from August 1987 to February 1988 during which period no less than 22 such baggage handlers were convicted of theft. The schedule of sentences disclosed a wide range of sentences by different magistrates, many of which were suspended sentences.

7. These cases came-to light when the Independent Commission Against Corruption installed video cameras in the luggage holds of various civil aircraft in an attempt to prevent the pilfering of passengers' luggage. In The Queen v Dhunay (1986) 8 Cr. App. R. (S) 107 The English Court of Appeal dealt with similar cases of pilfering by baggage handlers at Heathrow Airport in England. In those cases also concealed video cameras were used to catch the culprits.

8. In Dhunay's Case (above) the Court of Appeal said:

"We have before us a large number of men who until recently were all employed at Heathrow Airport. It was entrusted to their care in the expectation that they would deal with it honestly. That regrettably, as I shall explain, they simply did not do. It is a disgraceful story."

And later:

"Heathrow Airport is undoubtedly one of the most important airports in the world. It should have a reputation for, amongst other things, effeciency and honesty. Efficient it may be : its reputation for honesty has been deplorably sullied. "

9. Their Lordships concluded that for persistent pilfering from luggage at airports of the kind committed by these appellants three years' imprisonment is the starting point. Later, the Court said:

"The only redeeming feature in this case with respect to any one of them is the fact that they pleaded guilty. That and that alone favours them ........ We bear in mind that if it had not been for the fact that there were installed in the places I mentioned in Terminal 3 video cameras, it is unlikely that their dishonesty would have been uncovered. So to a certain extent the kind of reduction in sentence which they could properly expect for a plea of guilty is watered down to the extent that we can, we think, give but six months' allowance in respect of that. "

10. This is the second appeal from this type of case. The first was heard by O'Connor J. in The Queen v MAK Shek-kin, Mag. App. 1055 of 1987. The judge in that case consulted the High Court Judges who preside in criminal cases and all were of the view that for persistent theft by a baggage handler at Kai Tak the starting point ought to be 18 months to 2 years immediate imprisonment.

11. In the instant case the appellants were only charged with one case of theft but they acted in concert.

12. The magistrate was of the opinion, quite rightly, that this type of theft was a serious offence that must be curtailed as much as possible.

13. The sentence imposed by the learned magistrate cannot in any way be described as wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and the appeals by both appellants are dismissed.

Representation:

Miss Evens Chan, Crown Counsel for Crown.

Mr James Kynoch instructed by Messrs. Alick Au & Massie for 1st appellant.

Mr J.G. Stevenson instructed by Messrs. Tsang & Co, David K.W. for 2nd appellant.