Read the full judgment text of HCMA 000081/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 March 1998 before V. Bokhary.
Criminal law – sentencing – obtaining property by deception – 11 offences – social security fraud – consecutive versus concurrent sentences – whether magistrate's approach wrong in principle – considering totality before per-offence penalty – starting point – discount for guilty plea – Criminal law – sentencing – whether starting point manifestly excessive – prior convictions – amount involved – manner of commission. The appellant, a man in his mid-30s with a prior burglary conviction from 1982, pleaded guilty to 11 charges of obtaining property by deception. Over 11 months (July 1996 to May 1997), he obtained social security allowances totaling $11,706 by falsely declaring that the money would be used for rent. The magistrate imposed 1 month consecutive on charges 1 to 10 and 2 months consecutive on charge 11, totaling 12 months' imprisonment, with an 18-month starting point and a 6-month discount for the guilty plea. The court held that the magistrate's approach was wrong in principle because he considered totality before the appropriate penalty for each offence, following R v CHEN Yueh-ling. The court considered whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences, noting that the offences did not arise out of the same set of facts (LUI Shu-tong v R; AG v SHEK Wai-ip) and that defrauding the same institution does not preclude consecutive sentences (AG v Shamsudin). However, a series of short sentences should be avoided (R v Smith), and concurrent sentences are legitimate for discrete offences provided the total reflects the increased criminality of repetition (TONG Hoi-fung; LO Ching-fai; KWOK Chi-keung). The court held that 12 months was appropriate per offence, with 18 months as the starting point for concurrent sentences to reflect the 11-fold repetition, reduced by one-third (6 months) for the guilty plea, giving 12 months total. The appeal was allowed only to vary the sentences from consecutive to concurrent 12-month sentences without changing the net result.
Legal issues: Whether magistrate's approach of imposing consecutive sentences by considering totality before per-offence penalty was wrong in principle · Whether concurrent or consecutive sentences are appropriate for 11 discrete offences of obtaining property by deception · Appropriate starting point and discount for 11 offences of obtaining property by deception
Outcome: Appeal allowed in part; sentences varied from consecutive to concurrent 12-month sentences without changing the total of 12 months' imprisonment
Cited by 22 cases