HKSAR v. Chow Hung Kei
Read the full judgment text of CACC 419/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 October 1999.
1. On 6th August 1999, the Applicant was sentenced by Deputy Judge Duggan in the District Court to eighteen months' imprisonment for the theft of $925,800, the property of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. This was a general deficiency charge relating to the thefts of money between 19th October 1998 and 19th February 1999, which were committed in breach of trust while the Applicant was an employee of the bank. He had earlier pleaded guilty to the offence and sentence followe
|
CACC000419/1999 CACC419/99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 419 OF 1999 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 520 OF 1999)
------------------------------- Coram: Hon. Nazareth, V.-P., Stuart-Moore, V.-P. and Mayo, J.A. Date of Hearing: 14 October 1999 Date of Judgment: 14 October 1999 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Stuart-Moore V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. On 6th August 1999, the Applicant was sentenced by Deputy Judge Duggan in the District Court to eighteen months' imprisonment for the theft of $925,800, the property of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. This was a general deficiency charge relating to the thefts of money between 19th October 1998 and 19th February 1999, which were committed in breach of trust while the Applicant was an employee of the bank. He had earlier pleaded guilty to the offence and sentence followed an adjournment to obtain a probation report. 2. The Applicant's grounds of appeal relate to his feelings of remorse, the fact that most of the money he stole was ultimately repaid, and the ill health of his mother. Today in court he has emphasised that the ill health of his mother was in fact the major cause of his committing these offences. This, however, does not appear to be the case. The probation report makes no reference to anything of that kind although the Applicant's mother is referred to in the probation report a number of times. In paragraph 7 in particular, the report says that:
3. The real truth behind the theft of this very considerable sum of money is that the Applicant, as he told the probation officer:
Those are the Applicant's own reported words to the probation officer. 4. So far as the mitigation that was put before the court is concerned, the judge was mindful of the relevant features of what had been said and, in particular, the Applicant's ability to repay $753,187 because it had been found on him at the time of his arrest. Indeed, the judge made an order in that sum of restitution to the victim bank. 5. The judge in his Reasons for Sentence said:
6. With that background, the judge took a starting point of three years and reduced the sentence by no less than 50% as a mark of very considerable mercy in the light of the mitigation which had been advanced. The sentence was a lenient one and there is no merit whatever in this application. 7. Because the application has lacked merit, we shall order that the Applicant shall suffer three months' loss of time, which will have the effect of extending his sentence by three months.
Representation: Miss Louisa Lai, S.G.C. for D.P.P./Respondent. Applicant in person. |