Chan Wing-keung v. The Queen

CACC001031/1976

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

Coram: Morley-John, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th October, 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to the following six charges: namely Charge A giving false information to a pawnbroker contrary to section 22(1) of the Pawnbrokers Ordinance, Cap. 166; Charge B obtaining property by deception contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210; Charge C obtaining property by deception contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210; Charge D unlawful pawning contrary to section 23 of the Pawnbrokers Ordinance, Cap. 166; Charge E unlawful pawning contrary to section 23 of the Pawnbrokers Ordinance, Cap. 166; Charge F giving false information to a pawnbroker contrary to section 22(1) of the Pawnbrokers Ordinance Cap. 166; and Charge G obtaining property by deception contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. In relation to these offences the appellant was sentenced to the following penalties: On Charges A and F a fine of $500 or two months' imprisonment on each charge consecutive. On Charges B, C, D, E and G sentences of four months' imprisonment all consecutive and consecutive to the two terms of imprisonment passed in default of payment of the fines imposed on Charges A and F. The appellant was also ordered to pay compensation in the sum of $2,000 to one of the companies deceived by the appellant, and in default of such payment he was sentenced to another six months' imprisonment consecutive to the other sentences. The appellant has not paid the fines and has not paid any compensation, so that the total sentence to be served is thirty months. The appellant appeals against these sentences on the grounds that they are too severe. The appellant also informed me that he was not given a chance to pay the $2,000 compensation which he wished to do.

2. The appellant further contended that some of the sentences should have been concurrent and not consecutive as they arose out of the same transaction.

3. Although I do not consider that the overall sentence is in any way excessive, this was a carefully planned series of frauds, I do agree with the appellant that certain of the sentences should have been concurrent sentences. The appellant on the 10th August, 1976 obtained certain goods by deception from one company which he then unlawfully pawned and at the same time gave false information to the pawnbroker, that transaction was the subject of Charges B, D and F. On the 11th August, by a further deception, he obtained more goods from the same company; again, he unlawfully pawned the goods and at the same time gave false information to the pawnbroker. This transaction was the subject of Charges A, C and E. There is also one further charge of obtaining by deception earlier in the month from another company, the subject of Charge G. I considered that the sentences passed in relation to Charges B, D and F should be concurrent as also those in relation to Charges A, C and E but consecutive to the former sentences and that the sentence imposed in relation to Charge G should be consecutive to the other sentences.

4. The appeal therefore is allowed to the extent that the following sentences are substituted for those imposed by the learned magistrate:

thus making a total of 24 months.

5. Appellant to be given 21 days in which to pay compensation in the sum of $2,000 to Mei Wah Fashion Company. In default of such payment within such time 6 months' imprisonment consecutive to the sentences of 24 months on Charges B, C and G.

Representation:

The appellant in person.

Mr. T.M. Gall for the Crown/respondent.