The Queen v. Tang Yuen Siu

CACC000274A/1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

______

Coram: Li, V.-P., Silke, J.A. & Jones, J.

Date of Hearing: 13th November 1986

Date of Judgment: 13th November 1986

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke, J.A.:

1. When on the 10th of September we dismissed the application in respect of leave to appeal against conviction, we adjourned the matter of sentence so that we could be informed as to the total quantity and value of items which were seized in the Applicant's own premises, what that amounted to and whether or not it covered the amounts, first of all, in the eleven charges upon which the Applicant appeared for trial; secondly, the seven convictions and then generally as to his dealings with the pawnshop.

2. We, helpfully, have had a series of papers placed before us upon which Mr. Grounds has addressed us. It would appear from those that generally, but not completely, there has been a recompense made to the pawnshop for their losses. When I say "generally", I am referring not only to the seven convictions but also to the eleven charges and to the Applicant's dealings with the pawnshop.

3. This was a fraud perpetrated over a period of time. We do not accept that the substitution of real stones on a number of occasions for false stones is indicative of remorse, we think it more to be in line with the general nature of the fraud.

4. In passing sentence, the trial judge, who had the benefit of a Probation Officer's Report, stated that he had been told and had taken into consideration that the sums of money obtained from sale of the seized articles would probably cover the sums of money dishonestly obtained from the pawnshop.

5. It was submitted to us this morning that this is a 45 year old man with a clear record, the form of criminal activity in which he engaged is not one which he is likely to commit again and the Probation Report is reasonably favourable.

6. In these circumstances, Mr. Grounds has pressed us to consider that a sentence of 21 months, which was the totality of the sentence passed, was not merely slightly large but was in excess of the proper punishment for this offence given all the surrounding circumstances including the recompense to the pawnshop. Despite everything that Mr. Grounds had said, and he had said everything that he could on behalf of the Applicant, we do not accede to that submission. We do not think the sentence here to have been excessive and we would refuse the application.

Representation:

G. Grounds, Esq. (Tang & Knight) for Applicant

Miss Helena Tse for Crown/Respondent