R. v. Kwan Sui-nin

CACC000369/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

No.369 of 1996
(Criminal)

____________

Coram: Hon. Nazareth, V.-P. and Wong, J.

Date of Hearing: 14 November 1996

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 14 November 1996

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Wong, J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant pleaded guilty before Her Honour Judge Beeson in the District Court to four charges of obtaining property by deception. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences totalling 18 months' imprisonment and against this sentence he now seeks leave to appeal.

2. The facts were that the applicant falsely pretended to the victim that he had just bought a unit in a new block of flats which he was prepared to sell for $4.8 million. As a result the victim paid the applicant on three occasions a total of $210,000.00 either as deposit or initial payment. It subsequently turned out that the applicant had not bought the property and had no right to sell it. The receipts produced by him showing down payments of $721,500.00 to the development company by him and purported to have been signed by a solicitors' firm were proved to be forgeries.

3. Before us and in his letter to this Court, he repeated that $100,000.00 were in fact paid to the developer by him on behalf of the victim. In Court, he said that there was nothing wrong with the sentence but would hope for a reduction. He blamed the break-up of his marriage and financial difficulties that led him to the commission of the offences. He also had to take care of his two months' old daughter. In other words, he was pleading for mercy.

4. The judge called for a background report before sentencing and considered the matter with care. She took a starting point of 3 years for the offences as a whole and reduced it to 18 months on account of the applicant's plea of guilty and personal circumstances. The judge did not consider that this was an appropriate case for a suspended sentence and she was right.

5. In our view, the sentence imposed by the judge is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The application has no merits and is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. Dick, S.C.C. for the Crown.

Applicant in person.