Lam Fuk-chung v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 448/1978 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to five charges of forgery and to five further charges of uttering forged documents by means of which he obtained from certain banks some nine hundred thousand dollars. This sum is in the process of being repaid by the Appellant's father something in excess of three hundred thousand dollars remaining outstanding at the present time.
|
CACC000448/1978
----------------- Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 2nd June, 1978. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Pickering, J.A.: 1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to five charges of forgery and to five further charges of uttering forged documents by means of which he obtained from certain banks some nine hundred thousand dollars. This sum is in the process of being repaid by the Appellant's father something in excess of three hundred thousand dollars remaining outstanding at the present time. 2. The Appellant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling thirty-six months and, on this appeal against sentence, we are wholly unable to interfere with that aggregate term. We note however that the Appellant asked for thirty-five similar offences to be taken into consideration and that the learned judge imposed concurrent sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment in respect of these thirty-five offences, those concurrent sentences to be also concurrent with the term of three years' imprisonment. 3. Just as it is wrong in principle to sentence an Appellant upon certain charges only and to take others into consideration after a plea has been taken upon those charges (see Reg. v. Lo Ying(1) and Reg. v. Leung Fuk Lam(2)) so also is it wrong in principle to impose a sentence in respect of offences regarding which no plea has been taken. When offences are taken into consideration no conviction is recorded and it is therefore wholly inappropriate to impose any sentence. The correct course is that the fact that offences have been taken into consideration should be reflected in a stiffening of one of the sentences imposed in respect of a substantive charge - usually the most serious. The appeal must be allowed to the extent that the thirty-five concurrent sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment imposed in respect of the offences taken into consideration are set aside. Representation: Appellant in person. H. Lindsay for Crown/Respondent. (1) 1967 H.K.L.R. 471 at 472/473. (2) 1976 H.K.L.R. 398. |