HKSAR v. Tse Chor Suen

CACC000426/1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.426
(Criminal)

-------------------------------

Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P., Liu and Stuart Moore, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 19 December 1997

Date of Judgment: 19 December 1997

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Power, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to five charges of handling stolen goods and was sentenced overall to imprisonment for 30 months.

2. The facts as set out by the trial judge, Deputy Judge Wright, when sentencing was as follows:

"The goods in each instance are cheques which were the property of Watsons the Chemist Limited. Each of those cheques was negotiated through an account or accounts opened in the name of the defendant's brother.

It appears from the agreed summary of facts that these five cheques were part of a series of cheques which had been stolen from Watsons."

3. The defendant was identified as a result of photographs taken by the concealed cameras in the Standard Chartered Bank.

4. The defendant says, and the prosecution accepts that, as a reward for his conduct, he received $3,000. The amount of the loss overall, however, was $440,300. The judge took into account that the defendant came to commit the offences after having incurred gambling debts. The clear record of the defendant and his family circumstances were also taken into account. The trial judge said:

"Guided by authorities insofar as it is possible in matters of this nature, it is my view that an appropriate starting point after trial for these offences would be one of 36 months' imprisonment."

He then gave the applicant a one-third discount because of his plea and further reduced the sentence because of his clear record and personal circumstances. He arrived at 20 months as appropriate sentence in relation to charges of this sort. He then dealt with the sentences in two blocks dealing first with the two offences committed on 15th August and then with the three offences committed on 16th August. He made the two blocks of sentences concurrent with each other but ordered that the sentence of 20 months on the second set of offences be consecutive by 10 months to the 20 months imposed on the first set of offences.

5. He said finally:

"I want the defendant to be aware and I am conscious of the fact that some of his family members are in court so they should be aware as well that if his family experiences any hardship insofar as his daughter is concerned as a result of his incarceration, it is open to them to approach the Social Welfare Department for assistance."

6. The applicant again raises the matters before us that he raised before the trial judge. Whilst these circumstances may arouse sympathy, they do not constitute any ground for interfering with what were carefully calculated and, indeed, lenient sentence.

7. The applicant is dismissed. There will be three months loss of time.

Representation:

Mr. D.G. Saw, S.C. (D.P.P.) for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.