The Attorney General v. Ho Ah-biu
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 11/1976 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The respondent was found guilty of twenty-five charges of obtaining property by deception. In a matter of some two weeks he bought poultry worth over $88,000 from various poultry farmers in the New Territories and it was proved that at the time he made such purchases he had no intention to pay. The magistrate sentenced the respondent to nine months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent but suspended for two years.
|
CAAR000011/1976
-----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 7th June, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The respondent was found guilty of twenty-five charges of obtaining property by deception. In a matter of some two weeks he bought poultry worth over $88,000 from various poultry farmers in the New Territories and it was proved that at the time he made such purchases he had no intention to pay. The magistrate sentenced the respondent to nine months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent but suspended for two years. 2. It is the contention of the Attorney General that these sentences are wrong in principle. In Application for Review No.9 of 1976, The Attorney General v. YU Kin Keung, the Court of Appeal stated that where there is a series of offences similar to those, the subject matter of this review, the proper sentence is an immediate custodial sentence and not a suspended sentence. This follows the practice of the courts in England. 3. In the event, we thought it right to allow this application and to substitute the sentences passed by the magistrate a sentence of six months' imprisonment for each of the offences, such sentences to be concurrent.
Representation: Sceats for Crown/applicant. Respondent in person. |